英语动词时与完成体及其语义互动的认知研究
|
摘要
在英语中,“时”和“完成体”都是非常重要的动词语法范畴。国内外语法学家的相关著述多如繁星,众说纷纭。尽管人们普遍承认“时”具有多种用法,但是认真研究这些用法之间关系的非常少,更少人以“时”的多义关系和“时"与“完成体”之间的语义互动关系为基础,分别研究英语“现在完成体”和“过去完成体”的语法意义多义关系,在此基础上尝试为困扰英语语法学界多年的“现在完成体之谜”以及其他一些与现在完成体相关的句法语用限制提供一致、合理的解释。因此,这样的研究具有较高的理论和实践价值。
首先,对“时”的研究,已经形成了三种主要观点：①“时"是表示时间区分的动词语法范畴,②“时”是一个指示范畴,和③“时”是两种定位成分之一；取得了两点基本共识：(1)只有“过去时”[(V)-ed]和“现在时”[(V)-s／es／φ]两个子范畴(通过屈折词缀标示)；(2)“过去时”和“现在时”都有多种用法。
但是,对于“过去时”和“现在时"各自不同用法之间的关系问题,前人的研究中存在四个方面的缺陷：(1)用语气语法范畴分而治之,避而不谈在不同的语气语法范畴之中能够运用同一动词屈折后缀形式的原因,似乎将它们之间的关系默认为同形异义关系(Jespersen1924, Poutsma1926, Curme1931,薄冰2000,张道真2002,等)；(2)列举不同用法,承认多义性,却忽视讨论“现在时”和“过去时”各自的多义关系(Quirk et al.1985, Declerck1991,2006,章振邦1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002,等)；(3)采取“抽象策略”解释“过去时”和“现在时”的各种具体用法,却忽视探究它们之间的关系,也未能明确指出各种用法的分布差异和能产性差异(Joos1964, Palmer197,易仲良1987,1988,1999, Brisard1997,1999,2002, Taylor2002,等)；(4)采取“多义关系策略”,研究“过去时”和“现在时”语法意义的多义性,但是由于他们的研究目标并非英语语法本身,因此缺乏系统性,而且出发点也大相径庭(Langacker1991,1999,2002,2003,2009,2011, Taylor1995,等)。这些研究都富于启发性,但都未能一致地、合理地解释“过去时”或“现在时”的多义关系,因此有进一步研究的必要。
其次,对英语动词“完成体”[have+(V)-en]语法范畴的研究,大家意见分歧。就其语法意义归属而言,主要形成了三种意见：(1)属于“时”的一个子范畴；(2)与“进行体”并列,属于“体”的-个子范畴；(3)既不属于“时”,也不属于“体”,而是一个独立的英语动词语法范畴,称为“相"(Palmer1974),“式态”(易仲良1989,1999),“次要时态”(Huddleston&Pullum2002),等等。这三种分类虽各有利弊,但其最大的不足是未能对“完成体”语法意义做出准确的界定,并用它来帮助解释“完成体”的各种限定形式(如“现在完成体”、“过去完成体”)的用法。
再者,对“现在完成体”的研究,大家的共识是它主要表示四种语法意义或用法：①表持续的完成体,②表存在的完成体,③表状态、结果的完成体和④表热点新闻的完成体(McCawley1971, Comrie1976)。为了解释这四种语法意义或用法之间的关系,先后形成了五种主要的理论,即“现在关联论”,“不定过去论”,“现在延展论”,“嵌入过去论’'(McCoard1978)和“完成体构式论”(Langacker1991,1999,2009)。可是,这些理论似乎都未能阐明“现在完成体”语法意义之间的多义关系,也未能一致、合理地解释所谓的“现在完成体之谜”(Klein1992),“Wh-状语疑问句之谜”(Kiparsky2002)和“时态搭配之谜”(Declerck1991),以及“现在完成体”所面临的其他句法、语用限制。
最后,对于“过去完成体”的研究,尽管人们比较一致地将其语法意义界定为“表示过去的过去”(Quirk et al.1985, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002,等),但是该语法意义却不能对过去完成体的四种主要用法之间的关系,即,①表过去的过去的状态,②表过去的过去的行为动作,③表与过去的事实相反,以及④表未曾实现的希望、打算或意图等,做出一致的、合理的解释。
针对前人研究中的不足,本文提出了如下三个研究问题：
(1)英语动词过去时和现在时各自的基本语法意义与它们各自的其他语法意义之间存在什么关系?(2)现在完成体和过去完成体各自的不同语法意义之间存在什么关系?(3)如何一致、合理地解释“现在完成体之谜”以及其他一些与“现在完成体”相关的句法、语用限制?
根据以上研究问题,本文运用概念整合理论(Fauconnier1985/1994,1997, Fauconnier&Turner2002)、概念隐喻和概念转喻理论(Lakoff&Johnson1980,2003, Indurkhya1992, Barcelona2000, Kovecses2002/2010),首先研究了英语动词“过去时”和“现在时”的语法意义多义关系,比较一致合理地解释了它们的各种用法,并分别建构出它们的辐射性多义关系模式；然后,从认知语言学的视角出发,重新界定了“完成体”语法范畴,在此基础上,通过系统、深入地研究“现在时”和“过去时"与“完成体”之间的语义互动,分别构建了“现在完成体”和“过去完成体”的辐射性多义关系模式,比较一致、合理地解释了它们的各种用法,以及“现在完成体”所面临的一些句法、语用限制。
在研究过程中,本文主要采用了定性说明的研究方法。主要语料来自国外著名学者的英语语言研究文献资料；有些语料是通过查询“英国国家语料库”和“当代美国英语语料库”获得的；还有一些语料是本文作者在美国俄勒冈大学访学时,在与美国学者讨论相关问题的过程中,由他们提供的。
本研究主要由三部分构成：过去时语法意义的多义关系的概念隐喻和概念整合研究,现在时语法意义的多义关系概念转喻和概念整合研究,以及“完成体”与“过去时”和“现在时”的语义互动的概念整合研究。
对“过去时”语法意义多义关系的研究,本文围绕着它的四种主要用法展开：①表过去,②表将来时间里的先时性,③表客气、委婉的态度,④表假设、或非真实性。在定性分析这四种主要用法之间的关系时,主要涉及三个方面的内容：(1)阐述过去时多义性存在的理据；(2)分析运用同形异义策略或抽象策略解释过去时多义性的不可行性；(3)运用概念隐喻、概念整合理论,论证过去时语法意义之间的辐射性多义关系。
对“现在时”语法意义多义关系的研究,也围绕着它的四种主要用法展开：①表现在,②表过去(历史性现在时),③表将来,④表想象的或虚假的现在。在定性分析这四种主要用法之间的关系时,主要涉及到四个方面的内容：(1)界定现在时间；(2)阐述现在时多义性存在的理据；(3)“认知的即时性”作为现在时的基本语法意义的启示作用；(4)运用概念转喻、概念整合理论,论证现在时语法意义之间的辐射性多义关系。
对“完成体”与“现在时”和“过去时”的语义互动研究,主要从四个方面展开：(1)对“完成体”的新识解,构建其概念图式；(2)分析“现在时”与“完成体”的概念整合过程；(3)分析“过去时”与“完成体”的概念整合过程；(4)解释“现在完成体之谜”以及其他一些相关句法语用限制。
通过以上研究,不仅一致、合理地回答了前面提出的研究问题,而且在理论研究上取得了三个方面的进展和成果：
(1)建构了英语动词“过去时”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式
“过去时”最基本的语法意义就是“表示过去时间”,它可以通过时间轴上说话时刻与其左侧某个时点之间的时间距离意象图式来表征。当该图式隐喻性投射到时间轴上说话时刻右侧,“过去时”就能用来表示“将来时间里的先时性”。
将该时间距离意象图式与认识域中表示“演进中的现实”的意象图式(Radden&Dirven2007;Langacker1991,2008)作为两个输入空间,选择性投射到一个整合空间,进行概念整合,就产生了表示事件的现实状况与语言中所描述的状况之间存在的距离(真值),它表征了过去时“表示假设或违实"的语法意义。
若将该时间距离图式与社会文化域中表示社会人际关系的意象图式作为两个输入空间,选择性投射到一个整合空间,进行概念整合,就产生了表示说话人与受话人之间基于经济、社会、伦理等因素的亲疏关系的心理距离意象图式,它表征了过去时“表示客气、委婉态度’的语法意义。由此,“过去时”的4种语法意义便形成了一个辐射性多义关系模式,如图(1)所示：
(2)构建了英语动词“现在时”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式
“现在时”的基本语法意义是“表示现在时间”,即,包含说话时刻的一段或长或短的时间。从认知上来说,该意义实质上凸显出谓语动词在语境中所描述的动作或状态在说话时刻、在说话人心中具有心理现实性,也就是说,说话人依据自己的判断,在说话时刻想到某一动作或状态不仅在过去和现在具有现实性,而且在将来也具有必然性。因此,可以通过“左右向心型心理联系”意象图式来表征。其中,“左”指“说话时刻的左侧,即过去时间,“右”指“说话时刻的右侧,即将来时间”,“向心”指“指向说话人的说话时刻这个话语中枢”(Leech1978,易仲良1988,1999,陈敏哲2000,陈敏哲,易经2008)。
该意象图式通过转喻分别拓展为“左向心型心理联系”和“右向心型心理联系”,用来描述过去和将来的动作或状态。将这三种“向心型心理联系”及其相互关系整体上投射到虚拟世界或想象世界之中,就使得“现在时”可用于表达小说叙事、舞台指导、旅行日程安排、指示说明等文体中的想象性动作或状态。这样,英语动词现在时便形成了以“表示现在时间”为基本语法意义的辐射性多义关系模式：
(3)构建了英语动词完成体的语法意义意象图式,“现在完成体”和“过去完成体”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式；比较一致、合理地解释了“现在完成体之谜”以及另外一些与“现在完成体”有关的句法、语用限制。
英语动词“完成体”是指说话人利用一个特定的时间框架,将动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程的英语动词语法范畴。它具有三个基本特征：(1)主观化程度较高；(2)所描述的动作或状态不与“说话时刻”直接相关；(3)预设了一个特定的时间段,其起始点由语境决定。以此为基础,本文通过借鉴Langacker (1987a:116-137,1987b,1999:203-245)有关动词体性的意象图式,建构出“完成体”的语法意义意象图式,如图(3)所示：在图(3)中,T代表时间轴；实线长方形(P)代表“完成体”预设的一段有界时间,分别以S点和R点为始点和终点；虚线长方形(E)表示一个动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程所占据的时间；无论E 在研究“现在时”与“完成体”的语义互动关系时,本文运用概念整合理论将“完成体”的意象图式和“现在时”表示“左右向心型心理联系”的意象图式(参见Figure5.6)当作两个输入空间,进行概念整合,前者的框架被选择性投射到整合空间中作为组织性框架,其终点R的位置被从后者中选择性投射过来的说话时刻O点填充；表征“左右向心型心理联系"的双箭头也被投射到了整合空间,经过组合、完善和扩展等运演过程后,在整合空间中产生了层创结构,如图(4)所示。
其中,“(？)”表示O点填充到R点的位置,这是现在完成体最本质的特征之一。E表示通过P凸显出来的有界过程,其具体表现形式根据E的不同体性意义而变化。指向说话时刻的左右箭头表示“左右向心型心理联系"。
图(4)表征了“现在完成体”的基本语法意义,本文称之为“被识解为有界的过程的左右向心型心理联系”。它表示说话人利用一个以说话时刻为终点的时间框架,将动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程,并且说话人在说话时刻,一方面通过以因代果的概念转喻,认定该过程对说话时刻的情状产生某种影响,另一方面认为它具有复现的或延续的潜势。据此,本文揭示了“现在完成体”的辐射性多义关系,如图(5)所示：
根据以上研究,本文合理、一致地解释了“现在完成体之谜”,“Wh-状语疑问句之谜"和“时态搭配之谜”,以及其他一些相关的句法、语用限制(参见第6.5节)
其次,在研究“过去时”与“完成体”的语义互动关系时,本文也运用了概念整合理论。将“完成体”的意象图式和“过去时”表示“时间距离”的意象图式(参见Figure4.3)当作两个输入空间,进行概念整合,在整合空间中创造出一个层创结构,如图(6)所示。它表征了“过去完成体”的基本语法意义,本文称之为“说话时刻与被识解为有界的某个过去发生的过程之间的时间距离”,即“过去的过去”。说话人一方而利用一个以说话时刻O点左侧的过去时点R为终点的特定时间框架,将动词在语境中表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程,另一方面,由于“距离性”意义的驱动(在图中通过从o点到R点的箭头表示),说话人只是描述发生在过去的过去的事件,而并不涉及该事件与说话时刻之间的关系。
与过去时拓展其基本语法意义的方式相似,该基本语法意义从时间域隐喻性投射到违实域之后(参见Figure4.6),就会产生一个相应的隐喻性概念结构,它表示一个在过去某一时间未曾发生的过程,说话人在说话时刻却依据某种理由主观设想该过程发生过,是真实的；或者说话人认为他／她自己过去所持的某个希望、想法、期待等,直到说话时刻也未能实现,或者依据某种理由判定它将来也没有实现的可能性。由此产生了过去完成体的“违实用法”和“想象性用法”据此,本文揭示了过去完成体的多义关系,如图(7)所示：
在图(7)中,“过去完成体”的基本语法意义为表示“过去的过去发生的过程”。根据动词在语境中所表达过程的体性特征,该基本语法意义又可细分为两个小类：①过去的经验性完成体,表示在过去的过去发生过的动作,②过去的持续性完成体,表示在过去的过去一直存在的状态。
这三项研究成果深化了人们对英语现在时、过去时、现在完成体和过去完成体各自不同语法意义或用法之间相互关系的理解,为今后深入研究时、体、情态之间的互动关系提供了思路,也为我国高校的英语语法教学提供了借鉴。
Tense and the perfect aspect are essential grammatical categories of English verbs, and the literature on them at home and abroad is abundant but of different views. Although it is commonly agreed that tense has various uses in English, few scholars have seriously studied the relations among those uses, fewer scholars have tried to study the polysemy of the present perfect aspect and that of the past perfect aspect based on the polysemy of the present tense and the past tense, and the semantic interactions between tense and the perfect aspect, even fewer scholars have tried to figure out a consistent and reasonable explanation to some syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect, e.g.,"the present perfect puzzle", which have actually been bothering the English grammarians since long before and which are real nuts to crack. Therefore it is of both theoretical and practical significance to study the polysemy of tense and its semantic interactions with the perfect aspect.
First of all, with respect to the study of tense in English, three major viewpoints have been formed:(1) tense is a grammatical ised means of time-distinctions,(2) tense is a deictic category,(3) tense is one of the two grounding elements, and two consensuses have been reached:(1) there are two subcategories of tense in English, the past tense and the present tense, which are inflected with "-ed" and "-s/es/(?)" correspondingly;(2) both the past tense and the present tense have various uses.
However, as for what relations exist among the various uses of the present tense and those of the past tense respectively, this dissertation finds out four major drawbacks in the previous related studies:(1) with the adoption of the mood category, most scholars have cleverly avoided probing into the reason why the same verb inflection can be used to convey completely different meanings, which are seemingly of default homonymy (Jespersen1924, Poutsma1926, Curme1931, Bo Bing2000, Zhang Daozhen2002);(2) many scholars neglect to explore the relations among the different uses of the past tense and among those of the present tense although they list and describe its different uses (Quirk et al.1985, Declerck1991,2006, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002);(3) some scholars employ the strategy of abstraction in order to explain the various uses of the past tense and those of the present tense. Unfortunately, they haven't touched the interrelations among these uses either, nor illustrated the discrepancies of the distribution and productivity of those uses (Joos1964, Palmer1971, Leech1978, Yi Zhongliang1987,1988b,1999, Brisard1997,1999,2002, Taylor2002, etc.);(4) some scholars use the strategy of polysemy to study the different uses of the past tense and those of the present tense, however, because their study purpose is to test the feasibility of their theories instead of systematically expounding the tense of English verbs per se, their study of tense is not systematic, their study perspectives are not consistent either (Langacker1991,1999,2001,2002,2003,2009,2011, Taylor1995). Nevertheless, this dissertation thinks all these studies are illuminating on the one hand; on the other hand, they are unable to offer a consistent and convincing explanation to the polysemy of the present tense and that of the past tense. Hence, it is necessary to advance studies in this respect.
Moreover, scholars vary in their viewpoints in the previous studies of the perfect aspect in English [have+(V)-en]. As for which grammatical category the form "have+(V)-en" should be classified into, three major opinions have been formed based on the meaning it expresses:①it is a subcategory of tense,②it is a subcategory of aspect paralleling to the progressive aspect,③it is neither a subcategory of tense nor that of aspect, but forms a new grammatical category, called "phase"(Palmer1974),"formula"(Yi Zhongliang1989,1999),"secondary tense"(Huddleston&Pullum2002), etc. This dissertation thinks that the three classifications have both advantages and disadvantages of their own; however, their main and common drawbacks are that they fail to specify the grammatical meaning of the perfect aspect and use it to explain the uses of the finite forms of the perfect aspect (e.g., the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect) in a consistent way.
Furthermore, in the previous studies of the present perfect aspect, a consensus has been reached that it can convey four distinct meanings or uses:①universal perfect,②existential/experiencial perfect,③stative/resultative perfect, and④hot news perfect (McCawley1971, Comrie1976, Quirk et al.1985, Binnick1991, Declerck1991,2006, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002, etc.). And five different theories have come into being in order to expound the relations among these four meanings or uses of the present perfect:the current relevance theory, the indefinite past theory, the extended now theory, the embedded past theory (c.f, McCoard1978) and the perfect construction theory (Langacker1991,1999,2009). Nevertheless, the five theories can neither explicate the interrelations among the four major meanings of the present perfect aspect, nor explain consistently and convincingly the so called "present perfect puzzle","Wh-puzzle" and "Sequence of Tense Puzzle", and some other syntactic or pragmatic constraints in the use of the present perfect aspect.
In addition, concerning the study of the past perfect aspect, although scholars have unanimously agreed that its grammatical meaning is to express "past-in-the-past"(Quirk et al.1985, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002, etc.), such a grammatical meaning can not give a consistent explanation to the relations among the four distinct uses of the past perfect:①referring to a past state in the past,﹔eferring to a past action in the past,③referring to an event that is supposed to have happened in the past, but the speaker thinks that is not true,④referring to a hope, expectation, supposition, etc., which has not been realized yet.
For the purpose of overcoming the above mentioned drawbacks in the previous studies of the present tense, the past tense, the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect, this dissertation proposes the following three research questions:
(1) What are the relations between the basic grammatical meanings of the present tense and the past tense and their other grammatical meanings correspondingly?
(2) What are the relations among the distinct meanings of the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect respectively?
(3) What is a possible consistent and reasonable account for "the present perfect puzzle" and some other syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect?
This dissertation studies these research questions from the perspectives of the conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier1985/1994,1997, Fauconnier&Turner2002), the conceptual metaphor theory and the conceptual metonymy theory (Lakoff&Johnson1980,2003, Indurkhya1992, Barcelona2000, Kovecses2002/2010). It first studies comprehensively the polysemy of the present tense and that of the past tense, explains consistently and convincingly their various uses and constructs their radial polysemic models respectively. Then it re-defines the perfect aspect from the perspective of construal and profiling, on such a basis, it studies the polysemy of the present perfect aspect and that of the past perfect aspect through the detailed studies of the semantic interactions between the perfect aspect and the present tense and the past tense. In addition, it constructs their respective radial polysemic model and offers a comparatively consistent and convincing account for those syntactic and pragmatic constraints of the present perfect aspect, including the present perfect puzzle.
This dissertation mainly applies the qualitative research method. The major research data are from a large volume of related literature by distinguished scholars at home and abroad, some are from the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and some are offered directly by American linguistic scholars to the author of this dissertation when he discussed relevant questions with them in the University of Oregon.
This dissertation consists of three major parts:the study of the polysemy of the past tense from the perspectives of CMT and CBT, the study of the polysemy of the present tense from the perspectives of CMYT and CBT, and the study of the semantic interactions between the perfect aspect and tense from CBT.
The study of the polysemy of the past tense is focused on its four major different meanings:①referring to past time,②referring to the anterior time in the future,③indicating hypothesis or counterfactuality, and④implying tentative or polite attitude. In the course of our qualitative analysis of the relations among them, three respects are involved:(1) motivations for the relations among the four uses of the past tense;(2) infeasibility of the strategy of homonymy or abstraction;(3) arguing for a radial polysemic model of the past tense through metaphor and conceptual blending.
The study of the polysemy of the present tense is also concentrated on its four major distinct meanings:①referring to present time,②referring to past time (the historical present),③referring to future time, and④referring to the present time in imaginary or fictional narratives. Our qualitative analysis of the relations among these four major meanings involves four respects:(1) making clear our interpretation of the present time;(2) motivations for the relations among the various uses of the present tense;(3) the enlightenment of epistemic immediacy as the basic meaning of the present tense;(4) arguing for a radial polysemic model of the present tense through metonymy and conceptual blending.
The study of the semantic interactions between tense and the perfect aspect is unwound from the following four dimensions:(1) a new construal of the perfect aspect and the construction of its image schema;(2) semantic interactions between the present tense and the perfect aspect;(3) semantic interactions between the past tense and the perfect aspect;(4) accounts for the present perfect puzzle and some other related syntactic and pragmatic constraints.
This dissertation finally achieves the following three principal findings and offers consistent and reasonable answers to its research questions:
(1) Revelation of a radial polysemic model of the past tense in English
The primary meaning of the past tense is "referring to the past time", which can be represented by the image schema of the distance between the moment of speaking and some point on its left side. When this image schema is projected onto the right side of the moment of speaking, it signifies the "anterior time in the future time zone"
When this image schema of temporal distance and the image schema of evolving reality in the epistemic domain (c.f, Langacker1991,2008, Radden&Dirven2007) are taken as two input spaces, their elements are selectively projected onto a blend space, where another image schema of distance is created, which stands for the gap between the situation of an event described in language and the realitiy of that event. That represents the meaning of "hypothesis or counterfactuality" of the past tense. In addition, when the image schema of temporal distance and that of people's social relations based on their ethical, economic and social status in the social-cultural domain are regarded as two input spaces, the result of their conceptual integration is an image schema of social distance, which signifies the past tense's grammatical meaning of "tentative or polite attitude". Accordingly, the four distinct meanings of the past tense form a radial polysemic model:
(2) Revelation of a radial polysemic model of the present tense in English
The primary meaning of the present tense is referring to the present time, which includes the moment of speaking and which can be short or long with the potentiality of stretching into the future. Cognitively speaking, this meaning actually profiles the psychological reality of the state or action expressed by a verb in context, in other words, based on his/her judgment at the moment of speaking, the speaker thinks that some action or state not only has reality in the past or at the present, but also has necessity in the future. Therefore, this meaning can be represented by an image schema of "left-right endocentric mental association","left" refers to "the left of the moment of speaking, that's past time","right""the right of the moment of speaking, that's future time","endocentric mental association" refers to "the speaker at the moment of speaking connects in mind the reality of the situation both in the past and in the future"(c.f., Leech1978, Yi Zhongliang1988b,1999, Chen Minzhe2000, Chen Minzhe&Yi Jing2008).
This primary meaning extends through metonymy into "left-endocentric mental association" and "right-endocentric mental association", the former indicates some described situation that in fact happened in the past but its psychological reality turns up in the speaker's mind at the moment of speaking, the latter suggests some described situation that will happen in the future but the speaker takes it as actuality at the moment of speaking based on his/her judgement. What's more, the three endocentric mental associations and their relations can all be metaphorically projected onto fictional domains, which enables the present tense to refer to imaginary situations in fictional narratives, stage directions, travelogue itinerary, the instruction booklet, etc. As a result, the four different meanings of the present tense also shape a radial polysemic model with "referring to the present time" at the core:
(3) Revelation of the image schema of the perfect aspect, the respective radial polysemic model of the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect, and the consistent and reasonable accounts for the present perfect puzzle and some other syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect
The perfect aspect in English is actually a grammatical category that construes the process (no matter whether it is imperfective or perfective) expressed by any verb in context as perfective with a specific time frame. It has three major features:①it is highly subjective;②the action or state it expresses has no direct relation to the moment of speaking;③it presupposes a specific time frame whose starting and ending points are usually grounded by context. Hence, we can figure out its image schema with reference to the image schemata of the aspectuality of verbs proposed by Langacker (1987a:116-137,1987b,1999:203-245).
In Figure3, T stands for time axis, the solid-line rectangle (P) represents the time frame presupposed by the perfect aspect with S as its starting point and R as its ending point, the broken-line rectangle (E) indicates the period that the imperfective or perfective process takes, which is expressed by a verb in context. No matter whether E
首先,对“时”的研究,已经形成了三种主要观点：①“时"是表示时间区分的动词语法范畴,②“时”是一个指示范畴,和③“时”是两种定位成分之一；取得了两点基本共识：(1)只有“过去时”[(V)-ed]和“现在时”[(V)-s／es／φ]两个子范畴(通过屈折词缀标示)；(2)“过去时”和“现在时”都有多种用法。
但是,对于“过去时”和“现在时"各自不同用法之间的关系问题,前人的研究中存在四个方面的缺陷：(1)用语气语法范畴分而治之,避而不谈在不同的语气语法范畴之中能够运用同一动词屈折后缀形式的原因,似乎将它们之间的关系默认为同形异义关系(Jespersen1924, Poutsma1926, Curme1931,薄冰2000,张道真2002,等)；(2)列举不同用法,承认多义性,却忽视讨论“现在时”和“过去时”各自的多义关系(Quirk et al.1985, Declerck1991,2006,章振邦1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002,等)；(3)采取“抽象策略”解释“过去时”和“现在时”的各种具体用法,却忽视探究它们之间的关系,也未能明确指出各种用法的分布差异和能产性差异(Joos1964, Palmer197,易仲良1987,1988,1999, Brisard1997,1999,2002, Taylor2002,等)；(4)采取“多义关系策略”,研究“过去时”和“现在时”语法意义的多义性,但是由于他们的研究目标并非英语语法本身,因此缺乏系统性,而且出发点也大相径庭(Langacker1991,1999,2002,2003,2009,2011, Taylor1995,等)。这些研究都富于启发性,但都未能一致地、合理地解释“过去时”或“现在时”的多义关系,因此有进一步研究的必要。
其次,对英语动词“完成体”[have+(V)-en]语法范畴的研究,大家意见分歧。就其语法意义归属而言,主要形成了三种意见：(1)属于“时”的一个子范畴；(2)与“进行体”并列,属于“体”的-个子范畴；(3)既不属于“时”,也不属于“体”,而是一个独立的英语动词语法范畴,称为“相"(Palmer1974),“式态”(易仲良1989,1999),“次要时态”(Huddleston&Pullum2002),等等。这三种分类虽各有利弊,但其最大的不足是未能对“完成体”语法意义做出准确的界定,并用它来帮助解释“完成体”的各种限定形式(如“现在完成体”、“过去完成体”)的用法。
再者,对“现在完成体”的研究,大家的共识是它主要表示四种语法意义或用法：①表持续的完成体,②表存在的完成体,③表状态、结果的完成体和④表热点新闻的完成体(McCawley1971, Comrie1976)。为了解释这四种语法意义或用法之间的关系,先后形成了五种主要的理论,即“现在关联论”,“不定过去论”,“现在延展论”,“嵌入过去论’'(McCoard1978)和“完成体构式论”(Langacker1991,1999,2009)。可是,这些理论似乎都未能阐明“现在完成体”语法意义之间的多义关系,也未能一致、合理地解释所谓的“现在完成体之谜”(Klein1992),“Wh-状语疑问句之谜”(Kiparsky2002)和“时态搭配之谜”(Declerck1991),以及“现在完成体”所面临的其他句法、语用限制。
最后,对于“过去完成体”的研究,尽管人们比较一致地将其语法意义界定为“表示过去的过去”(Quirk et al.1985, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002,等),但是该语法意义却不能对过去完成体的四种主要用法之间的关系,即,①表过去的过去的状态,②表过去的过去的行为动作,③表与过去的事实相反,以及④表未曾实现的希望、打算或意图等,做出一致的、合理的解释。
针对前人研究中的不足,本文提出了如下三个研究问题：
(1)英语动词过去时和现在时各自的基本语法意义与它们各自的其他语法意义之间存在什么关系?(2)现在完成体和过去完成体各自的不同语法意义之间存在什么关系?(3)如何一致、合理地解释“现在完成体之谜”以及其他一些与“现在完成体”相关的句法、语用限制?
根据以上研究问题,本文运用概念整合理论(Fauconnier1985/1994,1997, Fauconnier&Turner2002)、概念隐喻和概念转喻理论(Lakoff&Johnson1980,2003, Indurkhya1992, Barcelona2000, Kovecses2002/2010),首先研究了英语动词“过去时”和“现在时”的语法意义多义关系,比较一致合理地解释了它们的各种用法,并分别建构出它们的辐射性多义关系模式；然后,从认知语言学的视角出发,重新界定了“完成体”语法范畴,在此基础上,通过系统、深入地研究“现在时”和“过去时"与“完成体”之间的语义互动,分别构建了“现在完成体”和“过去完成体”的辐射性多义关系模式,比较一致、合理地解释了它们的各种用法,以及“现在完成体”所面临的一些句法、语用限制。
在研究过程中,本文主要采用了定性说明的研究方法。主要语料来自国外著名学者的英语语言研究文献资料；有些语料是通过查询“英国国家语料库”和“当代美国英语语料库”获得的；还有一些语料是本文作者在美国俄勒冈大学访学时,在与美国学者讨论相关问题的过程中,由他们提供的。
本研究主要由三部分构成：过去时语法意义的多义关系的概念隐喻和概念整合研究,现在时语法意义的多义关系概念转喻和概念整合研究,以及“完成体”与“过去时”和“现在时”的语义互动的概念整合研究。
对“过去时”语法意义多义关系的研究,本文围绕着它的四种主要用法展开：①表过去,②表将来时间里的先时性,③表客气、委婉的态度,④表假设、或非真实性。在定性分析这四种主要用法之间的关系时,主要涉及三个方面的内容：(1)阐述过去时多义性存在的理据；(2)分析运用同形异义策略或抽象策略解释过去时多义性的不可行性；(3)运用概念隐喻、概念整合理论,论证过去时语法意义之间的辐射性多义关系。
对“现在时”语法意义多义关系的研究,也围绕着它的四种主要用法展开：①表现在,②表过去(历史性现在时),③表将来,④表想象的或虚假的现在。在定性分析这四种主要用法之间的关系时,主要涉及到四个方面的内容：(1)界定现在时间；(2)阐述现在时多义性存在的理据；(3)“认知的即时性”作为现在时的基本语法意义的启示作用；(4)运用概念转喻、概念整合理论,论证现在时语法意义之间的辐射性多义关系。
对“完成体”与“现在时”和“过去时”的语义互动研究,主要从四个方面展开：(1)对“完成体”的新识解,构建其概念图式；(2)分析“现在时”与“完成体”的概念整合过程；(3)分析“过去时”与“完成体”的概念整合过程；(4)解释“现在完成体之谜”以及其他一些相关句法语用限制。
通过以上研究,不仅一致、合理地回答了前面提出的研究问题,而且在理论研究上取得了三个方面的进展和成果：
(1)建构了英语动词“过去时”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式
“过去时”最基本的语法意义就是“表示过去时间”,它可以通过时间轴上说话时刻与其左侧某个时点之间的时间距离意象图式来表征。当该图式隐喻性投射到时间轴上说话时刻右侧,“过去时”就能用来表示“将来时间里的先时性”。
将该时间距离意象图式与认识域中表示“演进中的现实”的意象图式(Radden&Dirven2007;Langacker1991,2008)作为两个输入空间,选择性投射到一个整合空间,进行概念整合,就产生了表示事件的现实状况与语言中所描述的状况之间存在的距离(真值),它表征了过去时“表示假设或违实"的语法意义。
若将该时间距离图式与社会文化域中表示社会人际关系的意象图式作为两个输入空间,选择性投射到一个整合空间,进行概念整合,就产生了表示说话人与受话人之间基于经济、社会、伦理等因素的亲疏关系的心理距离意象图式,它表征了过去时“表示客气、委婉态度’的语法意义。由此,“过去时”的4种语法意义便形成了一个辐射性多义关系模式,如图(1)所示：
(2)构建了英语动词“现在时”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式
“现在时”的基本语法意义是“表示现在时间”,即,包含说话时刻的一段或长或短的时间。从认知上来说,该意义实质上凸显出谓语动词在语境中所描述的动作或状态在说话时刻、在说话人心中具有心理现实性,也就是说,说话人依据自己的判断,在说话时刻想到某一动作或状态不仅在过去和现在具有现实性,而且在将来也具有必然性。因此,可以通过“左右向心型心理联系”意象图式来表征。其中,“左”指“说话时刻的左侧,即过去时间,“右”指“说话时刻的右侧,即将来时间”,“向心”指“指向说话人的说话时刻这个话语中枢”(Leech1978,易仲良1988,1999,陈敏哲2000,陈敏哲,易经2008)。
该意象图式通过转喻分别拓展为“左向心型心理联系”和“右向心型心理联系”,用来描述过去和将来的动作或状态。将这三种“向心型心理联系”及其相互关系整体上投射到虚拟世界或想象世界之中,就使得“现在时”可用于表达小说叙事、舞台指导、旅行日程安排、指示说明等文体中的想象性动作或状态。这样,英语动词现在时便形成了以“表示现在时间”为基本语法意义的辐射性多义关系模式：
(3)构建了英语动词完成体的语法意义意象图式,“现在完成体”和“过去完成体”语法意义的辐射型多义关系模式；比较一致、合理地解释了“现在完成体之谜”以及另外一些与“现在完成体”有关的句法、语用限制。
英语动词“完成体”是指说话人利用一个特定的时间框架,将动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程的英语动词语法范畴。它具有三个基本特征：(1)主观化程度较高；(2)所描述的动作或状态不与“说话时刻”直接相关；(3)预设了一个特定的时间段,其起始点由语境决定。以此为基础,本文通过借鉴Langacker (1987a:116-137,1987b,1999:203-245)有关动词体性的意象图式,建构出“完成体”的语法意义意象图式,如图(3)所示：在图(3)中,T代表时间轴；实线长方形(P)代表“完成体”预设的一段有界时间,分别以S点和R点为始点和终点；虚线长方形(E)表示一个动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程所占据的时间；无论E
其中,“(？)”表示O点填充到R点的位置,这是现在完成体最本质的特征之一。E表示通过P凸显出来的有界过程,其具体表现形式根据E的不同体性意义而变化。指向说话时刻的左右箭头表示“左右向心型心理联系"。
图(4)表征了“现在完成体”的基本语法意义,本文称之为“被识解为有界的过程的左右向心型心理联系”。它表示说话人利用一个以说话时刻为终点的时间框架,将动词在语境中所表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程,并且说话人在说话时刻,一方面通过以因代果的概念转喻,认定该过程对说话时刻的情状产生某种影响,另一方面认为它具有复现的或延续的潜势。据此,本文揭示了“现在完成体”的辐射性多义关系,如图(5)所示：
根据以上研究,本文合理、一致地解释了“现在完成体之谜”,“Wh-状语疑问句之谜"和“时态搭配之谜”,以及其他一些相关的句法、语用限制(参见第6.5节)
其次,在研究“过去时”与“完成体”的语义互动关系时,本文也运用了概念整合理论。将“完成体”的意象图式和“过去时”表示“时间距离”的意象图式(参见Figure4.3)当作两个输入空间,进行概念整合,在整合空间中创造出一个层创结构,如图(6)所示。它表征了“过去完成体”的基本语法意义,本文称之为“说话时刻与被识解为有界的某个过去发生的过程之间的时间距离”,即“过去的过去”。说话人一方而利用一个以说话时刻O点左侧的过去时点R为终点的特定时间框架,将动词在语境中表达的有界的或无界的过程,一律识解为有界过程,另一方面,由于“距离性”意义的驱动(在图中通过从o点到R点的箭头表示),说话人只是描述发生在过去的过去的事件,而并不涉及该事件与说话时刻之间的关系。
与过去时拓展其基本语法意义的方式相似,该基本语法意义从时间域隐喻性投射到违实域之后(参见Figure4.6),就会产生一个相应的隐喻性概念结构,它表示一个在过去某一时间未曾发生的过程,说话人在说话时刻却依据某种理由主观设想该过程发生过,是真实的；或者说话人认为他／她自己过去所持的某个希望、想法、期待等,直到说话时刻也未能实现,或者依据某种理由判定它将来也没有实现的可能性。由此产生了过去完成体的“违实用法”和“想象性用法”据此,本文揭示了过去完成体的多义关系,如图(7)所示：
在图(7)中,“过去完成体”的基本语法意义为表示“过去的过去发生的过程”。根据动词在语境中所表达过程的体性特征,该基本语法意义又可细分为两个小类：①过去的经验性完成体,表示在过去的过去发生过的动作,②过去的持续性完成体,表示在过去的过去一直存在的状态。
这三项研究成果深化了人们对英语现在时、过去时、现在完成体和过去完成体各自不同语法意义或用法之间相互关系的理解,为今后深入研究时、体、情态之间的互动关系提供了思路,也为我国高校的英语语法教学提供了借鉴。
Tense and the perfect aspect are essential grammatical categories of English verbs, and the literature on them at home and abroad is abundant but of different views. Although it is commonly agreed that tense has various uses in English, few scholars have seriously studied the relations among those uses, fewer scholars have tried to study the polysemy of the present perfect aspect and that of the past perfect aspect based on the polysemy of the present tense and the past tense, and the semantic interactions between tense and the perfect aspect, even fewer scholars have tried to figure out a consistent and reasonable explanation to some syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect, e.g.,"the present perfect puzzle", which have actually been bothering the English grammarians since long before and which are real nuts to crack. Therefore it is of both theoretical and practical significance to study the polysemy of tense and its semantic interactions with the perfect aspect.
First of all, with respect to the study of tense in English, three major viewpoints have been formed:(1) tense is a grammatical ised means of time-distinctions,(2) tense is a deictic category,(3) tense is one of the two grounding elements, and two consensuses have been reached:(1) there are two subcategories of tense in English, the past tense and the present tense, which are inflected with "-ed" and "-s/es/(?)" correspondingly;(2) both the past tense and the present tense have various uses.
However, as for what relations exist among the various uses of the present tense and those of the past tense respectively, this dissertation finds out four major drawbacks in the previous related studies:(1) with the adoption of the mood category, most scholars have cleverly avoided probing into the reason why the same verb inflection can be used to convey completely different meanings, which are seemingly of default homonymy (Jespersen1924, Poutsma1926, Curme1931, Bo Bing2000, Zhang Daozhen2002);(2) many scholars neglect to explore the relations among the different uses of the past tense and among those of the present tense although they list and describe its different uses (Quirk et al.1985, Declerck1991,2006, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002);(3) some scholars employ the strategy of abstraction in order to explain the various uses of the past tense and those of the present tense. Unfortunately, they haven't touched the interrelations among these uses either, nor illustrated the discrepancies of the distribution and productivity of those uses (Joos1964, Palmer1971, Leech1978, Yi Zhongliang1987,1988b,1999, Brisard1997,1999,2002, Taylor2002, etc.);(4) some scholars use the strategy of polysemy to study the different uses of the past tense and those of the present tense, however, because their study purpose is to test the feasibility of their theories instead of systematically expounding the tense of English verbs per se, their study of tense is not systematic, their study perspectives are not consistent either (Langacker1991,1999,2001,2002,2003,2009,2011, Taylor1995). Nevertheless, this dissertation thinks all these studies are illuminating on the one hand; on the other hand, they are unable to offer a consistent and convincing explanation to the polysemy of the present tense and that of the past tense. Hence, it is necessary to advance studies in this respect.
Moreover, scholars vary in their viewpoints in the previous studies of the perfect aspect in English [have+(V)-en]. As for which grammatical category the form "have+(V)-en" should be classified into, three major opinions have been formed based on the meaning it expresses:①it is a subcategory of tense,②it is a subcategory of aspect paralleling to the progressive aspect,③it is neither a subcategory of tense nor that of aspect, but forms a new grammatical category, called "phase"(Palmer1974),"formula"(Yi Zhongliang1989,1999),"secondary tense"(Huddleston&Pullum2002), etc. This dissertation thinks that the three classifications have both advantages and disadvantages of their own; however, their main and common drawbacks are that they fail to specify the grammatical meaning of the perfect aspect and use it to explain the uses of the finite forms of the perfect aspect (e.g., the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect) in a consistent way.
Furthermore, in the previous studies of the present perfect aspect, a consensus has been reached that it can convey four distinct meanings or uses:①universal perfect,②existential/experiencial perfect,③stative/resultative perfect, and④hot news perfect (McCawley1971, Comrie1976, Quirk et al.1985, Binnick1991, Declerck1991,2006, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002, etc.). And five different theories have come into being in order to expound the relations among these four meanings or uses of the present perfect:the current relevance theory, the indefinite past theory, the extended now theory, the embedded past theory (c.f, McCoard1978) and the perfect construction theory (Langacker1991,1999,2009). Nevertheless, the five theories can neither explicate the interrelations among the four major meanings of the present perfect aspect, nor explain consistently and convincingly the so called "present perfect puzzle","Wh-puzzle" and "Sequence of Tense Puzzle", and some other syntactic or pragmatic constraints in the use of the present perfect aspect.
In addition, concerning the study of the past perfect aspect, although scholars have unanimously agreed that its grammatical meaning is to express "past-in-the-past"(Quirk et al.1985, Zhang Zhenbang1997, Biber et al.1999, Huddleston and Pullum2002, etc.), such a grammatical meaning can not give a consistent explanation to the relations among the four distinct uses of the past perfect:①referring to a past state in the past,﹔eferring to a past action in the past,③referring to an event that is supposed to have happened in the past, but the speaker thinks that is not true,④referring to a hope, expectation, supposition, etc., which has not been realized yet.
For the purpose of overcoming the above mentioned drawbacks in the previous studies of the present tense, the past tense, the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect, this dissertation proposes the following three research questions:
(1) What are the relations between the basic grammatical meanings of the present tense and the past tense and their other grammatical meanings correspondingly?
(2) What are the relations among the distinct meanings of the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect respectively?
(3) What is a possible consistent and reasonable account for "the present perfect puzzle" and some other syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect?
This dissertation studies these research questions from the perspectives of the conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier1985/1994,1997, Fauconnier&Turner2002), the conceptual metaphor theory and the conceptual metonymy theory (Lakoff&Johnson1980,2003, Indurkhya1992, Barcelona2000, Kovecses2002/2010). It first studies comprehensively the polysemy of the present tense and that of the past tense, explains consistently and convincingly their various uses and constructs their radial polysemic models respectively. Then it re-defines the perfect aspect from the perspective of construal and profiling, on such a basis, it studies the polysemy of the present perfect aspect and that of the past perfect aspect through the detailed studies of the semantic interactions between the perfect aspect and the present tense and the past tense. In addition, it constructs their respective radial polysemic model and offers a comparatively consistent and convincing account for those syntactic and pragmatic constraints of the present perfect aspect, including the present perfect puzzle.
This dissertation mainly applies the qualitative research method. The major research data are from a large volume of related literature by distinguished scholars at home and abroad, some are from the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and some are offered directly by American linguistic scholars to the author of this dissertation when he discussed relevant questions with them in the University of Oregon.
This dissertation consists of three major parts:the study of the polysemy of the past tense from the perspectives of CMT and CBT, the study of the polysemy of the present tense from the perspectives of CMYT and CBT, and the study of the semantic interactions between the perfect aspect and tense from CBT.
The study of the polysemy of the past tense is focused on its four major different meanings:①referring to past time,②referring to the anterior time in the future,③indicating hypothesis or counterfactuality, and④implying tentative or polite attitude. In the course of our qualitative analysis of the relations among them, three respects are involved:(1) motivations for the relations among the four uses of the past tense;(2) infeasibility of the strategy of homonymy or abstraction;(3) arguing for a radial polysemic model of the past tense through metaphor and conceptual blending.
The study of the polysemy of the present tense is also concentrated on its four major distinct meanings:①referring to present time,②referring to past time (the historical present),③referring to future time, and④referring to the present time in imaginary or fictional narratives. Our qualitative analysis of the relations among these four major meanings involves four respects:(1) making clear our interpretation of the present time;(2) motivations for the relations among the various uses of the present tense;(3) the enlightenment of epistemic immediacy as the basic meaning of the present tense;(4) arguing for a radial polysemic model of the present tense through metonymy and conceptual blending.
The study of the semantic interactions between tense and the perfect aspect is unwound from the following four dimensions:(1) a new construal of the perfect aspect and the construction of its image schema;(2) semantic interactions between the present tense and the perfect aspect;(3) semantic interactions between the past tense and the perfect aspect;(4) accounts for the present perfect puzzle and some other related syntactic and pragmatic constraints.
This dissertation finally achieves the following three principal findings and offers consistent and reasonable answers to its research questions:
(1) Revelation of a radial polysemic model of the past tense in English
The primary meaning of the past tense is "referring to the past time", which can be represented by the image schema of the distance between the moment of speaking and some point on its left side. When this image schema is projected onto the right side of the moment of speaking, it signifies the "anterior time in the future time zone"
When this image schema of temporal distance and the image schema of evolving reality in the epistemic domain (c.f, Langacker1991,2008, Radden&Dirven2007) are taken as two input spaces, their elements are selectively projected onto a blend space, where another image schema of distance is created, which stands for the gap between the situation of an event described in language and the realitiy of that event. That represents the meaning of "hypothesis or counterfactuality" of the past tense. In addition, when the image schema of temporal distance and that of people's social relations based on their ethical, economic and social status in the social-cultural domain are regarded as two input spaces, the result of their conceptual integration is an image schema of social distance, which signifies the past tense's grammatical meaning of "tentative or polite attitude". Accordingly, the four distinct meanings of the past tense form a radial polysemic model:
(2) Revelation of a radial polysemic model of the present tense in English
The primary meaning of the present tense is referring to the present time, which includes the moment of speaking and which can be short or long with the potentiality of stretching into the future. Cognitively speaking, this meaning actually profiles the psychological reality of the state or action expressed by a verb in context, in other words, based on his/her judgment at the moment of speaking, the speaker thinks that some action or state not only has reality in the past or at the present, but also has necessity in the future. Therefore, this meaning can be represented by an image schema of "left-right endocentric mental association","left" refers to "the left of the moment of speaking, that's past time","right""the right of the moment of speaking, that's future time","endocentric mental association" refers to "the speaker at the moment of speaking connects in mind the reality of the situation both in the past and in the future"(c.f., Leech1978, Yi Zhongliang1988b,1999, Chen Minzhe2000, Chen Minzhe&Yi Jing2008).
This primary meaning extends through metonymy into "left-endocentric mental association" and "right-endocentric mental association", the former indicates some described situation that in fact happened in the past but its psychological reality turns up in the speaker's mind at the moment of speaking, the latter suggests some described situation that will happen in the future but the speaker takes it as actuality at the moment of speaking based on his/her judgement. What's more, the three endocentric mental associations and their relations can all be metaphorically projected onto fictional domains, which enables the present tense to refer to imaginary situations in fictional narratives, stage directions, travelogue itinerary, the instruction booklet, etc. As a result, the four different meanings of the present tense also shape a radial polysemic model with "referring to the present time" at the core:
(3) Revelation of the image schema of the perfect aspect, the respective radial polysemic model of the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect, and the consistent and reasonable accounts for the present perfect puzzle and some other syntactic and pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect
The perfect aspect in English is actually a grammatical category that construes the process (no matter whether it is imperfective or perfective) expressed by any verb in context as perfective with a specific time frame. It has three major features:①it is highly subjective;②the action or state it expresses has no direct relation to the moment of speaking;③it presupposes a specific time frame whose starting and ending points are usually grounded by context. Hence, we can figure out its image schema with reference to the image schemata of the aspectuality of verbs proposed by Langacker (1987a:116-137,1987b,1999:203-245).
In Figure3, T stands for time axis, the solid-line rectangle (P) represents the time frame presupposed by the perfect aspect with S as its starting point and R as its ending point, the broken-line rectangle (E) indicates the period that the imperfective or perfective process takes, which is expressed by a verb in context. No matter whether E
In the study of the semantic interactions between the perfect aspect and the present tense with CBT, this dissertation takes the image schema of the perfect aspect and that of the "left-right endocentric mental association" of the present tense as two input spaces (c.f., Chapter5, Figure5.6). In the process of their conceptual integration, the frame of the former is selectively projected into the blend as the organizing frame whose ending point R is valued with the moment of speaking O, which is selectively projected from the latter. Furthermore, the two arrows representing "left-right endocentric mental association" are also selectively projected into the blend. With the process of composition, completion and elaboration, a blend with emergent structure is created as shown in Figure4.
In Figure4,"(?)" means O is a value of the role R, which is one of the essential features of the present perfect aspect. E stands for the construed perfective process; its specification depends on the aspectuality of the verb in context. The two arrows pointing to the moment of speaking represent "the right-left endocentric mental association".
Figure4represents the basic grammatical meaning of the present perfect aspect, which we called "the left-right endocentric mental association of a construed perfective process". On the one hand, the speaker construes a process (perfective or imperfective) expressed by a verb in context as perfective with a specific time frame whose ending point is the moment of speaking O, on the other hand, due to the motivation of "the left-right endocentric mental association", the speaker is aware of some effects of that process on the situation at the moment of speaking through the conceptual metonymy of "CAUSE FOR EFFECT", at the same time, he/she thinks that process has the potentiality of reoccurrence or continuation in the future. What's more, this basic meaning extends into other meanings through metonymy. We can thus reveal a radial polysemic model of the present perfect aspect as follows:
Accordingly, this dissertation offers a consistent and reasonable account for the puzzles mentioned above and some other syntactic or pragmatic constraints related to the present perfect aspect (c.f., section6.5).
Besides, in the study of the semantic interactions of the perfect aspect and the past tense with CBT, by taking the image schema of distance of the past tense and Figure4as two input spaces, this dissertation constructs a blend with an emergent structure, shown in Figure6, which represents the basic grammatical meaning of the past perfect. It is called "the temporal distance between the moment of speaking and a construed perfective process in the past", i.e.,"past-in-the-past". On the one hand, the speaker construes a process (perfective or imperfective) expressed by a verb in context as perfective with a specific time frame whose ending point locates on the left side of the moment of speaking O, on the other hand, due to the motivation of "distance", marked by the arrow from O to R, the speaker just describes a past event in the past, paying no attention to its connections to the moment of speaking.
Similar to the way the past tense extends its primary grammatical meaning, the conceptual structure of "past-in-the-past" can also be metaphorically projected into the counterfactual domain (c.f., Figure4.6), thus a corresponding conceptual structure is metaphorically produced. Such a conceptual structure can represent a process that did not take place in the past, but the speaker supposes that the process happened for some reasons; such a conceptual structure can also represent a hope, a thought, a desideration, etc. that the speaker held in the past, but that has not been realized till the moment of speaking, and that seems unable to be realized in the future based on the speaker's judgement. Therefore, the grammatical meaning of "counterfactuality" or "hypothesis" of the past perfect aspect comes into being. As a result, we can figure out a radial polysemic model of the past perfect aspect displayed in Figure7.
In Figure7,"past-in-the-past" as the basic meaning of the past perfect aspect can be further elaborated into two types depending on the aspectuality expressed by the verb in context:①the experiential perfect in the past, which indicates a past action in the past and②the continuative perfect in the past, which suggests a past state in the past.
The above-mentioned three findings have sharpened our understanding of the polysemy of the present tense, the past tense, the present perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect respectively, they have also offered a new perspective for the study of the interrelations among tense, aspect and modals, moreover, they have facilitated the English grammar teaching in colleges and universities in China.
引文
[1]Abrams, M. H.1999. A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th edition)[M]. Boston:Heinle & Heinle Thomson Learning.
[2]Alexander, L.G.1988. Longman English Grammar [M]. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
[3]Aristotle.1962. Aritstotle:The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics [C]. Harold P. Cooke and Hugh Tredennick (trans.). London:William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[4]Arseneault, M.2005. Metaphor:Philosophical Theories [A]. In Keith Brown (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.8) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.40-43.
[5]Barcelona, Antonio.2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[6]Bauer, Gero.1970. The English "perfect" reconsidered [J]. Journal of Linguistics 6.189-199.
[7]Bennett, Michael & Barbara Hall Partee.1972. Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English [C]. Distributed 1978 [A], Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
[8]Berezovsky, H. C.1978. A Paraphrastic Analysis of the Temporal Relationships in the English Verb System [D]. University of Pennsylvania.
[9]Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. London:Pearson Education Limited.
[10]Binnick, Robert I.1991. Time and the verb:A guide to tense and aspect [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
[11]Black, Max.1954. Metaphor [J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (55):273-294.
[12]Black, Max.1962. Models and Metaphors:Studies in Language and Philosophy [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
[13]Black, Max.1979. More about metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 19-43.
[14]Blake, N. F.1983. Shakespeare's Language:an Introduction [M]. London:Macmillan.
[15]Boogaart, Ronny.1999. Aspect and temporal ordering:A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English [M]. The Hague:Holland Academic Graphics.
[16]Boroditsky, L.2000. Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors [J]. Cognition (75):1-28.
[17]Brisard, Frank.1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category:The case of futurity [A]. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 271-285.
[18]Brisard, Frank.1999. A critique of localism in and about tense theory [D]. Belgium:University of Antwerp.
[19]Brisard, Frank.2002. The English present [A]. In Frank Brisard (eds.). Grounding:The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.251-297.
[20]Brinton, Laurel J.1988. The development of English aspectual systems:aspectualizers and post-verbal particles [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21]Brown, Goold.1884. The Grammar of English Grammars (10th edition) [M]. New York:William Wood & Company.
[22]Brown, Keith.2005. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.1-14) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
[23]Bryan, W. 1936. The Preterite and the Perfect Tenses in Present-Day English [J]. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 35:363-382.
[24]Bull, William E.1960. Time, Tense, and the Verb [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[25]Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar:Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. C hicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
[26]Caplan, Harry (trans.).1954. Ad C. Herennium De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) [M]. London:William Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
[27]Carey, Kathleen.1994. The Grammaticalization of the Perfect in Old English [A]. In William Pagliuca (eds.). Perspectives on Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.103-117.
[28]Casparis, Christian Paul.1975. Tense without Time:The Present Tense in Narration [M]. Bern:Francke.
[29]Chomsky, Noam.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
[30]Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake.1985. Tense, aspect and mood [A]. In T. Shopen (eds.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.3:Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-258.
[31]Clair, Colin.1966. History of Printing in Britain [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[32]Comrie, Bernard.1976. Aspect [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Comrie, Bernard.1981. On Reichenbach's approach to tense [A]. In Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek & Mary Frances Miller (eds.). Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society[C], Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.24-30.
[34]Comrie, Bernard.1985. Tense [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[35]Comrie, Bernard.1986. Tense in indirect speech [J]. Folia Linguistica 20:265-296.
[36]Coulson, Seana.1995. Analogic and Metaphoric Mapping in Blended Spaces [J]. Center for Research in Language Newsletter (1): 2-12.
[37]Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction [M]. New York/ Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[38]Coulson, Seana.2005. Metaphor and Conceptual Blending [A]. In Keith Brown (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.8) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.32-39.
[39]Croft, William.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (4):335-370.
[40]Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[41]Croft, William.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comment on Peirsman and Geeraert's "Metonymy as a prototypical category" [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):317-326.
[42]Currne.1931. Syntax [M]. Boston, New York and Chicago:D.C. Heath and Company.
[43]Dahl, Osten.1985. Tense and Aspect Systems [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
[44]Dahl, Osten.2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a topological perspective [A]. Osten Dahl (eds). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.3-26.
[45]Davidson, Donald.1978. What Metaphors Mean [J], Critical Inquiry (5):31-47.
[46]Declerck, Renaat.1986. From Reichenbach (1947) to Comrie (1985) and beyond:Towards a theory of tense [J]. Lingua 70(4):305-364.
[47]Declerck, Renaar.1990. Sequence of Tenses in English [J]. Folia Linguistica 24:513-544.
[48]Declerck, Renaat.1991. Tense in English:its structure and use in discourse [M]. London, New York:Routledge.
[49]Declerck, Renaat.1995. Is there a relative past tense in English? [J], Lingua 97:1-36.
[50]Declerck, Renaat.1997. When-clauses and temporal structure [M]. London:Routledge.
[51]Declerck, Renaat.1999. Remarks on Salkie and Reed's (1997) 'pragmatic hypothesis'of tense in reported speech [J]. English Language and Linguistics 3:83-116.
[52]Declerk, Renaut.2006. The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase [M]. Berlin, New York:Moutpn de Gruyter.
[53]Dik, Simon C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause (2nd revised edition) [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[54]Dinsmore, J.1981. Tense choice and time specification in English [J]. Linguistics 19:475-494.
[55]Diogenes Laertius.1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 Vols.) [M]. R. D. Hicks (trans.). London:Heinemann, and Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
[56]Dirven, Rene & Ralf Porings.2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[57]Dowty, David R.1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar:The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. [M]. Dordrecht:Reidel.
[58]Dowty, David R.1982. Tense, Time Adverbs, and Compositional Semantic Theory [M]. Linguistics and Philosophy (5):23-55.
[59]Dowty, David R., et al.1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics
[60]Einstein, Albert.1916. Relativity:The special and the general theoiy [M]. Robert W. Lawson (trans.). London:Penguin Books Ltd.1920.
[61]Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/377872/metaphor. (2011-5-8).
[62]Evans, Vyvyan.2004. The Structure of Time:Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[63]Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
[64]Fauconnier, Gilles.1985/1994. Mental Space [M]. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press/Cambridge:CUP.
[65]Fauconnnier, Gilles.1997. Mapping in Language and Thought [M]. Cambridge:CPU.
[66]Fauconnier, Gilles 2005. Compression and emergent structure [J]. Language & Linguistics 6(4):523-538.
[67]Fauconnier, Gilles & Eve Sweetser.1996. Spaces, Worlds and Grammar [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[68]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1996. Blending as a central process of grammar [A]. In Adele Goldberg (eds.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language [C]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Language and Information.113-130.
[69]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1998. Conceptual Integration Networks [J]. Cognitive Science 22(2):133-187.
[70]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1999. Metonymy and Conceptual Integration [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.77-90.
[71]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2002. The Way We Think [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[72]Fenn, Peter.1987. A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect [M]. Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
[73]Fillmore, Charles J.1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on deixis,1971 [M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistics Club.
[74]Fillmore, Charles J.1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.111-137. Reprinted in Dirk Geeraerts (eds.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.373-400.
[75]Finegan, Edward.1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation:an introduction [A]. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation:Linguistic perspectives [C]. Cambridge University Press.1-15.
[76]Fischer, Olga.1992. Syntax [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.1,1066 to 1476 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.207-408.
[77]Geeraerts, Dirk.1994. Metonymy. In R. E. Asher (eds.). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol.5) [Z]. Oxford: Pergamon.2477-2478.
[78]Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[79]Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens.2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press.
[80]Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[81]Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 61-76.
[82]Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[83]Gibbs, Raymond and Gerard Steen.1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.1-8.
[84]Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi.1997. Tense and aspect:from semantics to morphosyntax [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[85]Givon, T.1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[86]Givon, T.2001. Syntax:An Introduction (vol.1 & 2) [M]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[87]Goldsmith, John and Erich Woisetschlaeger.1982. The logic of the English progressive [J]. Linguistic Inquiry (13):79-89.
[88]Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson.1999. Metaphor and blending [A]. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., and Gerard J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.101-124.
[89]Haiman, John.1985. Natural Syntax:Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[90]Harder, Peter.1996. Functional semantics:A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[91]Harris, James. Hermes [M]. London:H. Woodfall.1751. Repr. Menston, England:Scholar Press,1968.
[92]Harris, Roy and Talbot J. Taylor.1997. Landmarks in linguistic Thought (I):The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure (2nd edition) [M]. London and New York:Routledge.
[93]Heny, Frank.1982. Tense, Aspect and Time Adverbials. Part II [J]. Language and Philosophy (5):109-154.
[94]Hogg, Richard M.1992. Phonology and Morphology [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.1, The Beginnings to 1066 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.67-167.
[95]Holdcroft, D.1991. Saussure:Signs, System, and Arbitrariness [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[96]Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott.1993/2003. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[97]Hornstein, Norbert.1991. As Time Goes By [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[98]Horwich, P.1987. Asymmetries in Time:Problems in the Philosophy of Science [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[99]Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum, et al.2002. Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[100]Indurkhya, Bipin.1992. Metaphor and Cognition:An Interactionist Approach [M]. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[101]Jackendoff, Ray.1999. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[102]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1995. The preterit enabled by the pluperfect [A]. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, Osten Dahl, and Mario Squartini (eds.). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol.2, Typological perspectives [C]. Torino, Italy: Rosenberg and Sellier.239-254.
[103]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1996. Tense in reported speech and its frame of reference [A]. In Theo A. J. M. Janssen and Wim van der Wurff. (eds.). Reported speech:Forms and functions of the verb [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.237-259.
[104]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1998. The referentiality of tenses [J]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics (12):209-226.
[105]Jespersen, Otto.1924. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: George Allan & Unwin.
[106]Jespersen, Otto.1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part Ⅳ:Syntax, vol.3 [M]. London:George Allen & Unwin, and Copenhagen:Einar Munksgaard. Repr.1949.
[107]Jespersen, Otto.1933. Essentials of English Grammar [M]. London:George Allan & Unwin.
[108]Johnson, Christopher.1999. Metaphor v.s. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy:The case of SEE [A]. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, and S. Wilcox (eds). Cultural, typological and psychological issues in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:Hon Benjamins. 155-169.
[109]Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[110]Johnson, Mark.1993. Moral imagination:Implications of cognitive science for ethics [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[111]Johnson, Mark.2007. The Meaning of the Body:Aesthetics of Human Understanding [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[112]Joos, M.1964. The English Verb:form and meaning [M]. Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press.
[113]Kiparsky, Paul.2002. Event Structure and the Perfect [A], in David I Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Marinez, Brady Z. Clark and Stefan Kaufmann (eds.). The Construction of Meaning [C]. CSLI Publications.
[114]Klein, Wolfgang.1992. The present perfect puzzle [J]. Language 68(3):525-552.
[115]Klein, Wolfgang.1994. Time in Language [M]. London, New York:Routledge.
[116]Koerner, E.F.K.1983. The Chomskyan'Revolution'and Its Historiography:A few critical remarks [J]. Language & Communication (3):147-169.
[117]Kovecses, Zoltan and Giinter Radden.1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 37-77.
[118]Kovecses, Zoltan.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[119]Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[120]Kovecses, Zoltan.2010. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[121]Krug, Manfred G.2000. Emerging English Modals:A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization [M]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[122]Kruisinga, E.1925. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Part Ⅱ: English Accidence and Syntax 1(4th edition) [M]. Utrecht:Kemink En Zoon.
[123]Laertius, Diogenes.1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 vols.) [M]. Trans. R. D. Hicks. London:Heinemann, and Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
[124]Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[125]Lakoff, George.1988. Cognitive semantics [A]. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio, & P. Violi (eds.). Meaning and Mental Representations [C].Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press. 119-154.
[126]Lakoff, George.1990. The Invariance Hypothesis:Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39-74.
[127]Lakoff, George.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-251.
[128]Lakoff, George.1996. Moral politics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[129]Lakoff, George.1997. How unconscious metaphorical thought shapes dreams [A]. In D.J. Stein (eds.). Cognitive Science and Psychoanalysis [C]. New York:American Psychoanalytic Association.
[130]Lakoff, George and Eve Sweetser.1994. Foreword. In Gilles Fauconnier. Mental Space [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press/ Cambridge:CUP.
[131]Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson.1980/2003. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
[132]Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[133]Lakoff, George & M. Turner.1989. More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor [M]. Chicago and London:Chicago University Press.
[134]Lakoff, George and Rafael Nunez.2000. Where Mathematics Comes From:How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[135]Langacker, Ronald W.1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I) [M]. Stanford University Press.
[136]Langacker, Ronald W.1987b. Nouns and Verbs [J]. Language 63: 53-94.
[137]Langacker, Ronald W.1990a. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[138]Langacker, Ronald W.1990b. Subjectification [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1:5-38.
[139]Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume Ⅱ) [M]. Stanford University Press.
[140]Langacker, Ronald W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1):1-38.
[141]Langacker, Ronald W.1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[142]Langacker, Ronald W.1999b. Virtual Reality [J]. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29:77-103.
[143]Langacker, Ronald W.2001. The English Present Tense [J]. English Language and Linguistics (5):251-272
[144]Langacker, Ronald W.2002. Deixis and subjectivity [A]. In Frank Brisard (eds.). Grounding:The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
[145]Langacker, Ronald W.2003. Extreme Subjectifi cation:English tense and modals [A]. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Motivation in Language [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins.3-26.
[146]Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[147]Langacker, Ronald W.2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[148]Langacker, Ronald W.2011. The English present:Temporal coincidence vs. epistemic immediacy [A].Adeline Patard and Frank Brisard (ed.).Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.45-86.
[149]Lass, Roger.1992. Phonology and Morphology [A]. In Norman Blake (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.Ⅱ, 1066 to 1476 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.23-155.
[150]Leech, Geoffrey N.1971. Meaning and the English Verb [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[151]Leech, Geoffrey N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London/New York:Longman Group Limited.
[152]Leech, Geoffrey N. and J. Svartvik.1974. A Communicative Grammar of English [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[153]Lowth, Robert.1794. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. With Critical Notes [M]. Publisher:Printed for J.J. Tourneisin.
[154]Ludlow, Peter.1999. Semantics, Tense, and Time:an Essay in the Metaphysics of Natural Language [M]. Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
[155]Lyons, John.1977. Semantics (Vol.1 & 2) [M]. London and New York:Cambridge University Press.
[156]Maetzner, of Berlin.1874. An English Grammar:Methodical, Analytical, and Historical (Vol. II) [M]. Clair James Grece (trans.). London:John Murray.
[157]Macaulay, R.K.S.1978. Review Comrie (1976) and Friedrich (1974). Language 54(3):416-420.
[158]Mandelblit, Nili.2000. The Grammatical Marking of Conceptual Integration:From Syntax to Morphology [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11(3/4):197-252.
[159]Martinet, Andre.1962. A Functional View of Language [M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[160]McCawley, James D.1971. Tense and time reference in English [A]. In D. T. Langendon and Charles J. Fillmore (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Semantics [C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 96-113.
[161]McCawley, James D.1981. Notes on the English Present Perfect [J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics (1):81-90.
[162]McCoard, Robert W.1978. The English Perfect:Tense-Choice and Pragmatics inferences [M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
[163]McNeill, D.1992. Hand and mind:What gestures reveal about thought [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[164]McTaggart, J. E.1908. The unreality of time [J]. Mind 17. Reprinted in:J. E. McTaggart.1934. Philosophical Studies. London: E.Arnold.110-131.
[165]Mellor, Hugh.1998. Real Time II [M]. London and New York: Routledge.
[166]Michaelis, Laura A.1993. Toward a grammar of aspect:the case of the English perfect construction [D]. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
[167]Michaelis, Laura A.1994. The Ambiguity of the English Present Perfect [J]. Journal of Linguistics (30):111-157.
[168]Michaelis, Laura A.1998. Aspectual grammar and past time reference [M]. London and New York:Routledge.
[169]Michael, Ian.1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[170]Millward, C. M.1989. A Biography of the English Language [M]. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
[171]Mittwoch, Anita.1988. Aspects of English aspect:On the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (2):203-254.
[172]Narayanan, Srinivas.1997. Embodiment in language understanding:Sensory-motor representations for metaphoric reasoning about event descriptions [D]. University of California, Berkeley.
[173]Nesfield, J. C.1907. English Grammar:Past and Present [M]. London:Macmillan.
[174]Newmeyer, Frederick J.1986. Has There Been a 'Chomskyan Revolution'in Linguistics?[J]. Language (1):1-18.
[175](?)hrstr(?)m, Peter and Per F. Hasle.1995. Temporal Logic:From Ancient Ideas to Artificial Intelligence [M]. Dordrecht, Boston and London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[176]Olsen, Mari Broman.1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect [M]. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
[177]Palmer, F. R.1965. A Linguistic Study of the English Verb [M]. London:Longmans.
[178]Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[179]Palmer, F. R.1987. The English Verb (Second Edition) [M]. London and New York:Longman Group Limited.
[180]Palmer, F. R.1979. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London and New York:Longman.
[181]Palmer, F. R.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[182]Palmer, F. R.1990. Modality and the English Modals (Second Edition) [M]. London and New York:Longman Group Limited.
[183]Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[184]Pancheva, Roumyana.2003. The aspectual makeup of Perfect participles and the interpretations of the Perfect [A]. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert and Arnim Von Stechow (eds.). Perfect Explorations [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.277-306.
[185]Pancheva, Roumyana & Arnim von Stechow.2004. On the Present Perfect Puzzle [A]. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 34.
[186]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (30):755-769.
[187]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[188]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.2007. Metonymy [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.236-263.
[189]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Gunter Radden.1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[190]Paprotte, Wolf, and Rene Dirven.1985. The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[191]Partee, Barbara Hall.1973. Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English [J]. The Journal of Philosophy (70): 601-609.
[192]Partee, Barbara Hall.1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry (2):203-300.
[193]Pautsma, H.1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English (Part II, Section II) [M]. Groningen:P. Noordhoff.
[194]Peirsman Yves and Dirk Geeraerts.2006a. Don't let metonymy be misunderstood:An answer to Croft [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):327-335.
[195]Peirsman Yves and Dirk Geeraerts.2006b. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics17 (3):269-316.
[196]Poidevin, Robin Le.2007. The Images of Time:An Essay on Temporal Representation [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[197]Poutsma, H.1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English [M]. P. Noordhoff Groningen.
[198]Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. Longman Group Limited.
[199]Radden, Gunter & Kovecses, Zoltan.1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K.U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.17-59.
[200]Radden, Gunter and Ken-ichi Seto.2003. Metonymic construals of shopping requests in have-and be-languages [A]. In K.U. Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.223-240.
[201]Radden, Gunter and R. Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[202]Reichenbach, Hans.1947. Elements of symbolic logic [M]. New York:The Free Press &London:Collier-Macmillan.
[203]Richards, Barry.1982. Tense, Aspect and Time Adverbials, Part I [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy (5):59-107.
[204]Richard, I. A.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. London and New York:Oxford University Press.
[205]Robins, R. H.1967. A Short History of Linguistics [M]. London and New York:Longman.
[206]Rosch, E.1973a. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology (4): 328-350.
[207]Rosch, E.1973b. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories [A]. In T. E. Moore (eds.). Cognitive Development ami the Acquisition of Language.New York:Academic Press [C].111-144.
[208]Rosch, E.1975a. Cognitive reference points [J]. Cognitive Psychology (7):532-547.
[209]Rosch, E.1975b. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General 104:192-233.
[210]Rosch, Eleanor.1978. Principles of Categorization [A]. In Rosch, Eleanor & B. B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. N. J. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.27-48.
[211]Rosch, Eleanor.1981. Prototype Classification and Logical Classification:The Two Systems [A]. In E. Scholnick (eds.).1983. New Trends in Cognitive Representation:Challenges to Piaget's Theory [C]. N. J. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.73-86.
[212]Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J., & Jose L. Otal Campo.2002. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication [M]. Albolote, Granada: Editorial Comares,.
[213]Salkie, Raphael, and Susan Reed.1997. Time reference in reported speech [J]. English Language and Linguistics (1):319-348.
[214]Sampson, Geoffrey.1980. Schools of Linguistics:Competition and Evolution [M]. London:Hutchinson.
[215]Saussure, Ferdinand de.1916. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye (eds.), Revised English Edition, Collins.1974.
[216]Searle, John.1972. Chomsky's revolution in linguistics [J]. New York Review of Books 29:16-24.
[217]Searle, John R.1979. Expression and Meaning:Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[218]Slobin, Dan I.1994. Discourse Origins of the Present Perfect [A]. In William Pagliuca (eds). Perspectives on Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company. 119-133.
[219]Smith, Carlota S.1983. A Theory of Aspectual Choice [J]. Language (59):479-501.
[220]Smith, Carlota S.1986. A Speaker-based Approach to Aspect [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy (9):97-115.
[221]Smith, Carlota S.1997. The Parameter of Aspect (Second Edition) [M]. Dordrecht, Boston, London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[222]Smith, Quentin Persifor.1993. Language and Time (1st Edition). New York:Oxford University Press.
[223]Sweetser, Eve.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[224]Sweetser, Eve.1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions [A]. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.318-333.
[225]Sweetser, Eve & Fauconnier, Gilles.1996. Cognitive links and domains:Basic aspects of mental space theory [A]. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweeter (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.1-28.
[226]Talmy, Leonard.1997. Relating language to other cognitive systems [R/OL]. Paper presented at the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997. http://linguistics.buffalo. edu/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/Handouts/relating4.pdf (accessed 20/03/2010).
[227]Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1-2). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:The MIT Press.
[228]Taylor, John R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
[229]Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[230]Taub, S.2001. Language from the body:Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[231]Thornburg, Linda and Klaus-Uwe Panther.1997. Speech act metonymies [A]. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.205-219.
[232]Trager, George L. & Henry Lee Smith, JR.1957. An Outline of English Structure [M]. Washington D.C.:American Council of Learned Societies.
[233]Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Syntax [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.Ⅰ:The Beginnings to1066 [C]. Cambridge University Press,1992.168-289.
[234]Turner, Mark.1991. Reading minds:the study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
[235]Turner, Mark.2007. Conceptual Integration [A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press. 377-393.
[236]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.1995. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression [J]. Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity(3):183-204.
[237]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.1998. Conceptual Integration in Counterfactuals [A]. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (eds.). Discourse and Cognition [C]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Language and Information.285-296.
[238]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.133-145.
[239]Veloudis, Ioannis.2003. Possession and conversation:the case of the category Perfect [A]. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert and Arnim Von Stechow (eds.). Perfect Explorations [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.381-400.
[240]Vendler, Zeno.1957. Verbs and Times [J]. The Philosophical Review (66):143-160. Rpt in Linguistics in Philosophy [C]. Ithaca, New York:Cornell University Press,1967.
[241]Verburg, Pieter A.1950. The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of Bopp [J]. Lingua (2):438-468.
[242]Verkuyl, Henk J.1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects [M]. Dordrecht-Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Company.
[243]Verkuyl, Henk J.1993. A Theory of Aspectuality:The Interaction Between Temporal and Atemporal Structure [M]. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne:Cambridge University Press.
[244]Visser, T. Th.1966. An Historical Syntax of the English Language (Vol.1-3) [M]. Leiden:E. J. Brill.
[245]Voβhagen, Christian.1999. Opposition as a metonymic principle [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 289-308.
[246]von Wright, E. H.1951. An Essay in Modal Logic [M]. Amsterdam:North Holland.
[247]White, James.1761. The English Verb [M]. Rpt. Menston, England:Scolar,1969.
[248]Zandvoort, R. W.1958. A Handbook of English Grammar (2nd edition) [M]. London, New York and Toronto:Longmans, Green and Co.
[249]Zipf, George Kingsley.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge (Mass.):Addison-Wesley Press.
[250]薄冰,2000,高级英语语法[M]。 北京：高等教育出版社。
[251]陈敏哲,2000,英语动词时态语法范畴的历时认知¨研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士论文。
[252]陈敏哲,2005,英语动词过去时语法意义拓展的隐喻化过程[J],外语教学与研究(2)：147-151。
[253]陈敏哲,易经,2007,英语动词现在时语法意义的多义关系认知研究[J],外语与外语教学(8)：17-22。
[254]陈敏哲,2008,英语动词过去时语法意义的多义关系研究[J],外语与外语教学(9)：12-14。
[255]李赋宁,1991,英语史[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[256]沈家煊,1995,“有界”与“无界”[J],中国语文(5)：367-380。
[257]沈家煊,王伟,2002,行知言[C],赵汀阳主编,论证(2)[A],南宁：广西师范大学出版社。
[258]沈家煊,2003a,再谈“有界”与“无界”[C],《语言学论丛》第三十辑[A],北京：商务印书馆。40-54。
[259]沈家煊,2003b,复句三域“行、知、言”[J],中国语文(3)：195-204。
[260]沈家煊,2008,三个世界[J],外语教学与研究(6)：1-8。
[261]姚善友,1964,英语语法学[M]。北京： 商务印书馆。
[262]易仲良,1987,论英语动词过去时态的实质[J], 外国语(1)：17-18。
[263]易仲良,1988a,论虚拟语气语法范畴的有无[J],外国语(1)：9-15。
[264]易仲良,1988b,论英语动词现在时的现联性[J],现代外语(4)：44-49。
[265]易仲良,1989,论have+-en的归宿[J],外国语(6)：49-56。
[266]易仲良,1992,论祈使语气语法范畴的有无[J],外语教学(4)：39-47。
[267]易仲良,1998,论英语中“说话时刻”的移位性[J],外语与外语教学(11)：10-13。
[268]易仲良,1999,英语动词语义语法学[M]。长沙：湖南师范大学出版社
[269]张道真,2002,实用英语语法(全新版)[M]。 北京：商务印书馆。
[270]章振邦,1997,新编英语语法(第三版)[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[2]Alexander, L.G.1988. Longman English Grammar [M]. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
[3]Aristotle.1962. Aritstotle:The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics [C]. Harold P. Cooke and Hugh Tredennick (trans.). London:William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[4]Arseneault, M.2005. Metaphor:Philosophical Theories [A]. In Keith Brown (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.8) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.40-43.
[5]Barcelona, Antonio.2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[6]Bauer, Gero.1970. The English "perfect" reconsidered [J]. Journal of Linguistics 6.189-199.
[7]Bennett, Michael & Barbara Hall Partee.1972. Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English [C]. Distributed 1978 [A], Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
[8]Berezovsky, H. C.1978. A Paraphrastic Analysis of the Temporal Relationships in the English Verb System [D]. University of Pennsylvania.
[9]Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. London:Pearson Education Limited.
[10]Binnick, Robert I.1991. Time and the verb:A guide to tense and aspect [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
[11]Black, Max.1954. Metaphor [J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (55):273-294.
[12]Black, Max.1962. Models and Metaphors:Studies in Language and Philosophy [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
[13]Black, Max.1979. More about metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 19-43.
[14]Blake, N. F.1983. Shakespeare's Language:an Introduction [M]. London:Macmillan.
[15]Boogaart, Ronny.1999. Aspect and temporal ordering:A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English [M]. The Hague:Holland Academic Graphics.
[16]Boroditsky, L.2000. Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors [J]. Cognition (75):1-28.
[17]Brisard, Frank.1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category:The case of futurity [A]. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 271-285.
[18]Brisard, Frank.1999. A critique of localism in and about tense theory [D]. Belgium:University of Antwerp.
[19]Brisard, Frank.2002. The English present [A]. In Frank Brisard (eds.). Grounding:The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.251-297.
[20]Brinton, Laurel J.1988. The development of English aspectual systems:aspectualizers and post-verbal particles [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21]Brown, Goold.1884. The Grammar of English Grammars (10th edition) [M]. New York:William Wood & Company.
[22]Brown, Keith.2005. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.1-14) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
[23]Bryan, W. 1936. The Preterite and the Perfect Tenses in Present-Day English [J]. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 35:363-382.
[24]Bull, William E.1960. Time, Tense, and the Verb [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[25]Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar:Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. C hicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
[26]Caplan, Harry (trans.).1954. Ad C. Herennium De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) [M]. London:William Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
[27]Carey, Kathleen.1994. The Grammaticalization of the Perfect in Old English [A]. In William Pagliuca (eds.). Perspectives on Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.103-117.
[28]Casparis, Christian Paul.1975. Tense without Time:The Present Tense in Narration [M]. Bern:Francke.
[29]Chomsky, Noam.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
[30]Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake.1985. Tense, aspect and mood [A]. In T. Shopen (eds.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.3:Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-258.
[31]Clair, Colin.1966. History of Printing in Britain [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[32]Comrie, Bernard.1976. Aspect [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Comrie, Bernard.1981. On Reichenbach's approach to tense [A]. In Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek & Mary Frances Miller (eds.). Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society[C], Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.24-30.
[34]Comrie, Bernard.1985. Tense [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[35]Comrie, Bernard.1986. Tense in indirect speech [J]. Folia Linguistica 20:265-296.
[36]Coulson, Seana.1995. Analogic and Metaphoric Mapping in Blended Spaces [J]. Center for Research in Language Newsletter (1): 2-12.
[37]Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction [M]. New York/ Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[38]Coulson, Seana.2005. Metaphor and Conceptual Blending [A]. In Keith Brown (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol.8) (2nd edition) [Z]. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.32-39.
[39]Croft, William.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (4):335-370.
[40]Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[41]Croft, William.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comment on Peirsman and Geeraert's "Metonymy as a prototypical category" [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):317-326.
[42]Currne.1931. Syntax [M]. Boston, New York and Chicago:D.C. Heath and Company.
[43]Dahl, Osten.1985. Tense and Aspect Systems [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
[44]Dahl, Osten.2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a topological perspective [A]. Osten Dahl (eds). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.3-26.
[45]Davidson, Donald.1978. What Metaphors Mean [J], Critical Inquiry (5):31-47.
[46]Declerck, Renaat.1986. From Reichenbach (1947) to Comrie (1985) and beyond:Towards a theory of tense [J]. Lingua 70(4):305-364.
[47]Declerck, Renaar.1990. Sequence of Tenses in English [J]. Folia Linguistica 24:513-544.
[48]Declerck, Renaat.1991. Tense in English:its structure and use in discourse [M]. London, New York:Routledge.
[49]Declerck, Renaat.1995. Is there a relative past tense in English? [J], Lingua 97:1-36.
[50]Declerck, Renaat.1997. When-clauses and temporal structure [M]. London:Routledge.
[51]Declerck, Renaat.1999. Remarks on Salkie and Reed's (1997) 'pragmatic hypothesis'of tense in reported speech [J]. English Language and Linguistics 3:83-116.
[52]Declerk, Renaut.2006. The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase [M]. Berlin, New York:Moutpn de Gruyter.
[53]Dik, Simon C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause (2nd revised edition) [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[54]Dinsmore, J.1981. Tense choice and time specification in English [J]. Linguistics 19:475-494.
[55]Diogenes Laertius.1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 Vols.) [M]. R. D. Hicks (trans.). London:Heinemann, and Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
[56]Dirven, Rene & Ralf Porings.2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[57]Dowty, David R.1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar:The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. [M]. Dordrecht:Reidel.
[58]Dowty, David R.1982. Tense, Time Adverbs, and Compositional Semantic Theory [M]. Linguistics and Philosophy (5):23-55.
[59]Dowty, David R., et al.1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics
[60]Einstein, Albert.1916. Relativity:The special and the general theoiy [M]. Robert W. Lawson (trans.). London:Penguin Books Ltd.1920.
[61]Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/377872/metaphor. (2011-5-8).
[62]Evans, Vyvyan.2004. The Structure of Time:Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[63]Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
[64]Fauconnier, Gilles.1985/1994. Mental Space [M]. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press/Cambridge:CUP.
[65]Fauconnnier, Gilles.1997. Mapping in Language and Thought [M]. Cambridge:CPU.
[66]Fauconnier, Gilles 2005. Compression and emergent structure [J]. Language & Linguistics 6(4):523-538.
[67]Fauconnier, Gilles & Eve Sweetser.1996. Spaces, Worlds and Grammar [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[68]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1996. Blending as a central process of grammar [A]. In Adele Goldberg (eds.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language [C]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Language and Information.113-130.
[69]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1998. Conceptual Integration Networks [J]. Cognitive Science 22(2):133-187.
[70]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1999. Metonymy and Conceptual Integration [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.77-90.
[71]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2002. The Way We Think [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[72]Fenn, Peter.1987. A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect [M]. Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
[73]Fillmore, Charles J.1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on deixis,1971 [M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistics Club.
[74]Fillmore, Charles J.1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.111-137. Reprinted in Dirk Geeraerts (eds.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.373-400.
[75]Finegan, Edward.1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation:an introduction [A]. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation:Linguistic perspectives [C]. Cambridge University Press.1-15.
[76]Fischer, Olga.1992. Syntax [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.1,1066 to 1476 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.207-408.
[77]Geeraerts, Dirk.1994. Metonymy. In R. E. Asher (eds.). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol.5) [Z]. Oxford: Pergamon.2477-2478.
[78]Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[79]Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens.2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press.
[80]Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[81]Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 61-76.
[82]Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[83]Gibbs, Raymond and Gerard Steen.1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.1-8.
[84]Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi.1997. Tense and aspect:from semantics to morphosyntax [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[85]Givon, T.1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[86]Givon, T.2001. Syntax:An Introduction (vol.1 & 2) [M]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[87]Goldsmith, John and Erich Woisetschlaeger.1982. The logic of the English progressive [J]. Linguistic Inquiry (13):79-89.
[88]Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson.1999. Metaphor and blending [A]. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., and Gerard J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.101-124.
[89]Haiman, John.1985. Natural Syntax:Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[90]Harder, Peter.1996. Functional semantics:A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[91]Harris, James. Hermes [M]. London:H. Woodfall.1751. Repr. Menston, England:Scholar Press,1968.
[92]Harris, Roy and Talbot J. Taylor.1997. Landmarks in linguistic Thought (I):The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure (2nd edition) [M]. London and New York:Routledge.
[93]Heny, Frank.1982. Tense, Aspect and Time Adverbials. Part II [J]. Language and Philosophy (5):109-154.
[94]Hogg, Richard M.1992. Phonology and Morphology [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.1, The Beginnings to 1066 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.67-167.
[95]Holdcroft, D.1991. Saussure:Signs, System, and Arbitrariness [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[96]Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott.1993/2003. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[97]Hornstein, Norbert.1991. As Time Goes By [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[98]Horwich, P.1987. Asymmetries in Time:Problems in the Philosophy of Science [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[99]Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum, et al.2002. Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[100]Indurkhya, Bipin.1992. Metaphor and Cognition:An Interactionist Approach [M]. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[101]Jackendoff, Ray.1999. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[102]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1995. The preterit enabled by the pluperfect [A]. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, Osten Dahl, and Mario Squartini (eds.). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol.2, Typological perspectives [C]. Torino, Italy: Rosenberg and Sellier.239-254.
[103]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1996. Tense in reported speech and its frame of reference [A]. In Theo A. J. M. Janssen and Wim van der Wurff. (eds.). Reported speech:Forms and functions of the verb [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.237-259.
[104]Janssen, Theo A. J. M.1998. The referentiality of tenses [J]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics (12):209-226.
[105]Jespersen, Otto.1924. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: George Allan & Unwin.
[106]Jespersen, Otto.1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part Ⅳ:Syntax, vol.3 [M]. London:George Allen & Unwin, and Copenhagen:Einar Munksgaard. Repr.1949.
[107]Jespersen, Otto.1933. Essentials of English Grammar [M]. London:George Allan & Unwin.
[108]Johnson, Christopher.1999. Metaphor v.s. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy:The case of SEE [A]. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, and S. Wilcox (eds). Cultural, typological and psychological issues in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:Hon Benjamins. 155-169.
[109]Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[110]Johnson, Mark.1993. Moral imagination:Implications of cognitive science for ethics [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[111]Johnson, Mark.2007. The Meaning of the Body:Aesthetics of Human Understanding [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[112]Joos, M.1964. The English Verb:form and meaning [M]. Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press.
[113]Kiparsky, Paul.2002. Event Structure and the Perfect [A], in David I Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Marinez, Brady Z. Clark and Stefan Kaufmann (eds.). The Construction of Meaning [C]. CSLI Publications.
[114]Klein, Wolfgang.1992. The present perfect puzzle [J]. Language 68(3):525-552.
[115]Klein, Wolfgang.1994. Time in Language [M]. London, New York:Routledge.
[116]Koerner, E.F.K.1983. The Chomskyan'Revolution'and Its Historiography:A few critical remarks [J]. Language & Communication (3):147-169.
[117]Kovecses, Zoltan and Giinter Radden.1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 37-77.
[118]Kovecses, Zoltan.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[119]Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[120]Kovecses, Zoltan.2010. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[121]Krug, Manfred G.2000. Emerging English Modals:A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization [M]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[122]Kruisinga, E.1925. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Part Ⅱ: English Accidence and Syntax 1(4th edition) [M]. Utrecht:Kemink En Zoon.
[123]Laertius, Diogenes.1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 vols.) [M]. Trans. R. D. Hicks. London:Heinemann, and Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
[124]Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[125]Lakoff, George.1988. Cognitive semantics [A]. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio, & P. Violi (eds.). Meaning and Mental Representations [C].Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press. 119-154.
[126]Lakoff, George.1990. The Invariance Hypothesis:Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39-74.
[127]Lakoff, George.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-251.
[128]Lakoff, George.1996. Moral politics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[129]Lakoff, George.1997. How unconscious metaphorical thought shapes dreams [A]. In D.J. Stein (eds.). Cognitive Science and Psychoanalysis [C]. New York:American Psychoanalytic Association.
[130]Lakoff, George and Eve Sweetser.1994. Foreword. In Gilles Fauconnier. Mental Space [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press/ Cambridge:CUP.
[131]Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson.1980/2003. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
[132]Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[133]Lakoff, George & M. Turner.1989. More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor [M]. Chicago and London:Chicago University Press.
[134]Lakoff, George and Rafael Nunez.2000. Where Mathematics Comes From:How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being [M]. New York:Basic Books.
[135]Langacker, Ronald W.1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I) [M]. Stanford University Press.
[136]Langacker, Ronald W.1987b. Nouns and Verbs [J]. Language 63: 53-94.
[137]Langacker, Ronald W.1990a. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[138]Langacker, Ronald W.1990b. Subjectification [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1:5-38.
[139]Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume Ⅱ) [M]. Stanford University Press.
[140]Langacker, Ronald W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1):1-38.
[141]Langacker, Ronald W.1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[142]Langacker, Ronald W.1999b. Virtual Reality [J]. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29:77-103.
[143]Langacker, Ronald W.2001. The English Present Tense [J]. English Language and Linguistics (5):251-272
[144]Langacker, Ronald W.2002. Deixis and subjectivity [A]. In Frank Brisard (eds.). Grounding:The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
[145]Langacker, Ronald W.2003. Extreme Subjectifi cation:English tense and modals [A]. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Motivation in Language [C]. Amsterdam:Benjamins.3-26.
[146]Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[147]Langacker, Ronald W.2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [M]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[148]Langacker, Ronald W.2011. The English present:Temporal coincidence vs. epistemic immediacy [A].Adeline Patard and Frank Brisard (ed.).Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.45-86.
[149]Lass, Roger.1992. Phonology and Morphology [A]. In Norman Blake (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.Ⅱ, 1066 to 1476 [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.23-155.
[150]Leech, Geoffrey N.1971. Meaning and the English Verb [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[151]Leech, Geoffrey N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London/New York:Longman Group Limited.
[152]Leech, Geoffrey N. and J. Svartvik.1974. A Communicative Grammar of English [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[153]Lowth, Robert.1794. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. With Critical Notes [M]. Publisher:Printed for J.J. Tourneisin.
[154]Ludlow, Peter.1999. Semantics, Tense, and Time:an Essay in the Metaphysics of Natural Language [M]. Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
[155]Lyons, John.1977. Semantics (Vol.1 & 2) [M]. London and New York:Cambridge University Press.
[156]Maetzner, of Berlin.1874. An English Grammar:Methodical, Analytical, and Historical (Vol. II) [M]. Clair James Grece (trans.). London:John Murray.
[157]Macaulay, R.K.S.1978. Review Comrie (1976) and Friedrich (1974). Language 54(3):416-420.
[158]Mandelblit, Nili.2000. The Grammatical Marking of Conceptual Integration:From Syntax to Morphology [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11(3/4):197-252.
[159]Martinet, Andre.1962. A Functional View of Language [M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[160]McCawley, James D.1971. Tense and time reference in English [A]. In D. T. Langendon and Charles J. Fillmore (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Semantics [C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 96-113.
[161]McCawley, James D.1981. Notes on the English Present Perfect [J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics (1):81-90.
[162]McCoard, Robert W.1978. The English Perfect:Tense-Choice and Pragmatics inferences [M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
[163]McNeill, D.1992. Hand and mind:What gestures reveal about thought [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[164]McTaggart, J. E.1908. The unreality of time [J]. Mind 17. Reprinted in:J. E. McTaggart.1934. Philosophical Studies. London: E.Arnold.110-131.
[165]Mellor, Hugh.1998. Real Time II [M]. London and New York: Routledge.
[166]Michaelis, Laura A.1993. Toward a grammar of aspect:the case of the English perfect construction [D]. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
[167]Michaelis, Laura A.1994. The Ambiguity of the English Present Perfect [J]. Journal of Linguistics (30):111-157.
[168]Michaelis, Laura A.1998. Aspectual grammar and past time reference [M]. London and New York:Routledge.
[169]Michael, Ian.1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[170]Millward, C. M.1989. A Biography of the English Language [M]. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
[171]Mittwoch, Anita.1988. Aspects of English aspect:On the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (2):203-254.
[172]Narayanan, Srinivas.1997. Embodiment in language understanding:Sensory-motor representations for metaphoric reasoning about event descriptions [D]. University of California, Berkeley.
[173]Nesfield, J. C.1907. English Grammar:Past and Present [M]. London:Macmillan.
[174]Newmeyer, Frederick J.1986. Has There Been a 'Chomskyan Revolution'in Linguistics?[J]. Language (1):1-18.
[175](?)hrstr(?)m, Peter and Per F. Hasle.1995. Temporal Logic:From Ancient Ideas to Artificial Intelligence [M]. Dordrecht, Boston and London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[176]Olsen, Mari Broman.1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect [M]. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
[177]Palmer, F. R.1965. A Linguistic Study of the English Verb [M]. London:Longmans.
[178]Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb [M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
[179]Palmer, F. R.1987. The English Verb (Second Edition) [M]. London and New York:Longman Group Limited.
[180]Palmer, F. R.1979. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London and New York:Longman.
[181]Palmer, F. R.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[182]Palmer, F. R.1990. Modality and the English Modals (Second Edition) [M]. London and New York:Longman Group Limited.
[183]Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[184]Pancheva, Roumyana.2003. The aspectual makeup of Perfect participles and the interpretations of the Perfect [A]. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert and Arnim Von Stechow (eds.). Perfect Explorations [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.277-306.
[185]Pancheva, Roumyana & Arnim von Stechow.2004. On the Present Perfect Puzzle [A]. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 34.
[186]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (30):755-769.
[187]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[188]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg.2007. Metonymy [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.236-263.
[189]Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Gunter Radden.1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[190]Paprotte, Wolf, and Rene Dirven.1985. The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[191]Partee, Barbara Hall.1973. Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English [J]. The Journal of Philosophy (70): 601-609.
[192]Partee, Barbara Hall.1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry (2):203-300.
[193]Pautsma, H.1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English (Part II, Section II) [M]. Groningen:P. Noordhoff.
[194]Peirsman Yves and Dirk Geeraerts.2006a. Don't let metonymy be misunderstood:An answer to Croft [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):327-335.
[195]Peirsman Yves and Dirk Geeraerts.2006b. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics17 (3):269-316.
[196]Poidevin, Robin Le.2007. The Images of Time:An Essay on Temporal Representation [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[197]Poutsma, H.1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English [M]. P. Noordhoff Groningen.
[198]Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. Longman Group Limited.
[199]Radden, Gunter & Kovecses, Zoltan.1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K.U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.17-59.
[200]Radden, Gunter and Ken-ichi Seto.2003. Metonymic construals of shopping requests in have-and be-languages [A]. In K.U. Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.223-240.
[201]Radden, Gunter and R. Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[202]Reichenbach, Hans.1947. Elements of symbolic logic [M]. New York:The Free Press &London:Collier-Macmillan.
[203]Richards, Barry.1982. Tense, Aspect and Time Adverbials, Part I [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy (5):59-107.
[204]Richard, I. A.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. London and New York:Oxford University Press.
[205]Robins, R. H.1967. A Short History of Linguistics [M]. London and New York:Longman.
[206]Rosch, E.1973a. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology (4): 328-350.
[207]Rosch, E.1973b. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories [A]. In T. E. Moore (eds.). Cognitive Development ami the Acquisition of Language.New York:Academic Press [C].111-144.
[208]Rosch, E.1975a. Cognitive reference points [J]. Cognitive Psychology (7):532-547.
[209]Rosch, E.1975b. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General 104:192-233.
[210]Rosch, Eleanor.1978. Principles of Categorization [A]. In Rosch, Eleanor & B. B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. N. J. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.27-48.
[211]Rosch, Eleanor.1981. Prototype Classification and Logical Classification:The Two Systems [A]. In E. Scholnick (eds.).1983. New Trends in Cognitive Representation:Challenges to Piaget's Theory [C]. N. J. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.73-86.
[212]Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J., & Jose L. Otal Campo.2002. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication [M]. Albolote, Granada: Editorial Comares,.
[213]Salkie, Raphael, and Susan Reed.1997. Time reference in reported speech [J]. English Language and Linguistics (1):319-348.
[214]Sampson, Geoffrey.1980. Schools of Linguistics:Competition and Evolution [M]. London:Hutchinson.
[215]Saussure, Ferdinand de.1916. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye (eds.), Revised English Edition, Collins.1974.
[216]Searle, John.1972. Chomsky's revolution in linguistics [J]. New York Review of Books 29:16-24.
[217]Searle, John R.1979. Expression and Meaning:Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[218]Slobin, Dan I.1994. Discourse Origins of the Present Perfect [A]. In William Pagliuca (eds). Perspectives on Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company. 119-133.
[219]Smith, Carlota S.1983. A Theory of Aspectual Choice [J]. Language (59):479-501.
[220]Smith, Carlota S.1986. A Speaker-based Approach to Aspect [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy (9):97-115.
[221]Smith, Carlota S.1997. The Parameter of Aspect (Second Edition) [M]. Dordrecht, Boston, London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[222]Smith, Quentin Persifor.1993. Language and Time (1st Edition). New York:Oxford University Press.
[223]Sweetser, Eve.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[224]Sweetser, Eve.1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions [A]. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.318-333.
[225]Sweetser, Eve & Fauconnier, Gilles.1996. Cognitive links and domains:Basic aspects of mental space theory [A]. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweeter (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar [C]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.1-28.
[226]Talmy, Leonard.1997. Relating language to other cognitive systems [R/OL]. Paper presented at the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997. http://linguistics.buffalo. edu/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/Handouts/relating4.pdf (accessed 20/03/2010).
[227]Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1-2). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:The MIT Press.
[228]Taylor, John R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford University Press.
[229]Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[230]Taub, S.2001. Language from the body:Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[231]Thornburg, Linda and Klaus-Uwe Panther.1997. Speech act metonymies [A]. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.205-219.
[232]Trager, George L. & Henry Lee Smith, JR.1957. An Outline of English Structure [M]. Washington D.C.:American Council of Learned Societies.
[233]Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Syntax [A]. In Richard M. Hogg (eds.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol.Ⅰ:The Beginnings to1066 [C]. Cambridge University Press,1992.168-289.
[234]Turner, Mark.1991. Reading minds:the study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
[235]Turner, Mark.2007. Conceptual Integration [A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press. 377-393.
[236]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.1995. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression [J]. Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity(3):183-204.
[237]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.1998. Conceptual Integration in Counterfactuals [A]. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (eds.). Discourse and Cognition [C]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Language and Information.285-296.
[238]Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.133-145.
[239]Veloudis, Ioannis.2003. Possession and conversation:the case of the category Perfect [A]. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert and Arnim Von Stechow (eds.). Perfect Explorations [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.381-400.
[240]Vendler, Zeno.1957. Verbs and Times [J]. The Philosophical Review (66):143-160. Rpt in Linguistics in Philosophy [C]. Ithaca, New York:Cornell University Press,1967.
[241]Verburg, Pieter A.1950. The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of Bopp [J]. Lingua (2):438-468.
[242]Verkuyl, Henk J.1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects [M]. Dordrecht-Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Company.
[243]Verkuyl, Henk J.1993. A Theory of Aspectuality:The Interaction Between Temporal and Atemporal Structure [M]. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne:Cambridge University Press.
[244]Visser, T. Th.1966. An Historical Syntax of the English Language (Vol.1-3) [M]. Leiden:E. J. Brill.
[245]Voβhagen, Christian.1999. Opposition as a metonymic principle [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 289-308.
[246]von Wright, E. H.1951. An Essay in Modal Logic [M]. Amsterdam:North Holland.
[247]White, James.1761. The English Verb [M]. Rpt. Menston, England:Scolar,1969.
[248]Zandvoort, R. W.1958. A Handbook of English Grammar (2nd edition) [M]. London, New York and Toronto:Longmans, Green and Co.
[249]Zipf, George Kingsley.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge (Mass.):Addison-Wesley Press.
[250]薄冰,2000,高级英语语法[M]。 北京：高等教育出版社。
[251]陈敏哲,2000,英语动词时态语法范畴的历时认知¨研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士论文。
[252]陈敏哲,2005,英语动词过去时语法意义拓展的隐喻化过程[J],外语教学与研究(2)：147-151。
[253]陈敏哲,易经,2007,英语动词现在时语法意义的多义关系认知研究[J],外语与外语教学(8)：17-22。
[254]陈敏哲,2008,英语动词过去时语法意义的多义关系研究[J],外语与外语教学(9)：12-14。
[255]李赋宁,1991,英语史[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[256]沈家煊,1995,“有界”与“无界”[J],中国语文(5)：367-380。
[257]沈家煊,王伟,2002,行知言[C],赵汀阳主编,论证(2)[A],南宁：广西师范大学出版社。
[258]沈家煊,2003a,再谈“有界”与“无界”[C],《语言学论丛》第三十辑[A],北京：商务印书馆。40-54。
[259]沈家煊,2003b,复句三域“行、知、言”[J],中国语文(3)：195-204。
[260]沈家煊,2008,三个世界[J],外语教学与研究(6)：1-8。
[261]姚善友,1964,英语语法学[M]。北京： 商务印书馆。
[262]易仲良,1987,论英语动词过去时态的实质[J], 外国语(1)：17-18。
[263]易仲良,1988a,论虚拟语气语法范畴的有无[J],外国语(1)：9-15。
[264]易仲良,1988b,论英语动词现在时的现联性[J],现代外语(4)：44-49。
[265]易仲良,1989,论have+-en的归宿[J],外国语(6)：49-56。
[266]易仲良,1992,论祈使语气语法范畴的有无[J],外语教学(4)：39-47。
[267]易仲良,1998,论英语中“说话时刻”的移位性[J],外语与外语教学(11)：10-13。
[268]易仲良,1999,英语动词语义语法学[M]。长沙：湖南师范大学出版社
[269]张道真,2002,实用英语语法(全新版)[M]。 北京：商务印书馆。
[270]章振邦,1997,新编英语语法(第三版)[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。