类型学视野下的英汉时体研究
|
摘要
时与体一直是当代语言学中的热门话题和研究难点，相比时的研究，学界对体的研究和争论更多，学者们对体研究中的核心问题并没有达成共识。体的概念被用来解释不同语法层次的成分或结构所表达的时间特征或现实中的各种情形，动词（或动宾短语）层面的如动词体、词汇体以及情状体，句子层面的如语法体和视点体，前者是对动词或动宾短语的时间语义特征或内在情状的描写，后者则是句子层面不同语法手段所表达的现实情状的进程或状态。
国外学者主要从认知语言学、语言类型学、体的理论系统、形式语义学以及ERS时间理论等几个方面对时或体进行了探讨，但大多数学者们所构建的体系统中的子类存在重叠现象，并未形成较严格的体对立，体系统缺乏逻辑性，即使是英语，时与体也未得到逻辑系统化。
国内学者的研究主要集中在现代汉语是否有时与体范畴以及时与体系统的建立方面，学者们所建立的时体系统各不相同，同时也存在从英语和俄语中搬用时体概念的现象，汉语的时体系统以及时与体之间的关系仍需进一步明晰。
总体来看，以往的一般时体研究以及采用ERS时体理论的研究仍不完善，学界至今尚未建立起一个具有跨语言普适性的ERS逻辑模型。这些问题主要与时与体的定义差异、没有区分不同体类型的语言以及时体系统构建缺乏较严格的逻辑框架等原因有关。
鉴于国内外对英汉时体系统的研究现状和存在问题，为最大限度地寻求语言形式与时体意义之间的关系，本文采取时体统一研究观，将时与体定义为句子层面的语义范畴，采用功能和形式相结合的研究范式，吸取语言类型学、认知语言学、形式语义学以及生成语法中的有关理论或假设，以求描写和解释的全面性。
本文在世界语言时体编码手段与时体类型、英汉俄时体系统与时体蕴涵共性、时体ERS逻辑模型的构建及应用等方面取得了一些创新，具体为以下几点：
（1）时体的跨语言编码方式主要包括词缀、功能词、助动词、音调、非词缀语素以及逆被动态，尽管时体的跨语言编码呈多样性，但从编码方式与时体意义的关系来看，象似性原则尤其是顺序象似很大程度上起了促动作用。从世界语言的时类型角度看，英语和汉语均是非典型的二分时和三分时，但都有过去时、现在时和将来时的表达手段。如果从语法化程度看，英语的时是“过去/非过去”的对立，汉语的时是“将来/非将来”的对立。从世界语言的体类型角度看，英汉语的体均是基于时间视点的“现实体/非现实体”对立，斯拉夫语族的俄语、波兰语以及捷克语中的体是基于空间视点的“完整体/非完整体”对立，这两种体类型都属于高层次的上位体义对立，每种体义都包含各自的下位体义。
（2）在时与体关系上，英语、汉语、缅甸语、曼尼普尔语以及图康伯西语遵循“将来时蕴涵非现实体”的逻辑关系，俄语、波兰语以及捷克语遵循“现在时蕴涵非完整体”的逻辑关系，这两条逻辑蕴涵关系中分别出现“将来时+现实体”和“现在时+完整体”不合法的“四缺一”格局。英汉语和俄语的体类型差异以及时体蕴涵关系可归因于不同的时间认知模式。英汉语属于自我移动模式或上行时间语言，俄语属于时间移动模式或下行时间语言，但两种模式的共同点是均选择静态参照物，英汉语以静态时轴上的点或段为参照，即时间视点体，俄语以静态现实世界（空间）中的点或段为参照，即空间视点体。
（3）英语、汉语及俄语的时体系统均可用ERS关系加以刻画，这三种语言的基本ERS时体结构全部在ERS逻辑模型中。根据本文的描写，英汉语时体意义所实现的ERS关系均为33种，这是英汉语时体表达的一种语义共性。俄语的时体组配数量与时体ERS关系数量远远少于英汉语，原因在于，英汉语现实体/非现实体的对立与RE关系无关，RE关系只对下位体义起单一限制作用，而俄语完整体/非完整体以及各自下位体义均由RE关系决定，RE关系同时影响上位体义和下位体义，起双重限制作用，从而排除了不符合要求的ERS关系。研究表明，时体ERS模型具有较强的阐释力，英汉语中某些与时体有关的难题可以通过ERS模型得到较好的解释。
（4）英语和汉语简单句中的时间状语在语义-句法上有共性也有差异。在语义共性方面，英汉时间状语与时均无直接关系，时间状语本质上是一个修饰参照时间R或事件时间E的修饰语；英汉时间状语所修饰的参照时间R与句子的时所触发的参照时间R发生冲突均会生成不合法语句。在语义差异方面，英语句首时间状语倾向于修饰R，句尾的则可修饰R或E，而汉语由于语序限制，句首时间状语可修饰R或E；英语时间状语修饰R或E会引发句子歧义，而在含有句首时间状语和时间助词“过”的汉语歧义句中，“过”约束还是引入一情状变量既是歧义原因，也是决定句首时间状语修饰R或E的必要条件。在句法表现上，英汉时间状语均可看作附加语，修饰R的时间状语嫁接在AspP上，修饰E的则嫁接在VP或vP上，汉语句首时间状语则经话题化驱动前移而成。“结构同构原则”并非是汉语中制约算子取域的绝对普适性原则，因为逆序辖域解读方式在汉语中有时也是允许的。
英语非频率性时间状语（或汉语时量补语）是一种非选择性变量约束算子，时算子和否定算子属于简单命题变量约束算子，体算子则是选择性变量约束算子。当不同类型的算子在同一逻辑式中共现时，逻辑式有两个限制：时算子、句子体算子和动词体算子的辖域总会构成一个从宽域到窄域的等级；辖域等级上的相邻算子需遵守“语义兼容性原则”，相邻算子或其所约束的变量之间的语义兼容性是逻辑式和语句均合法的必要条件。
本研究具有语言类型学和普通语言学的理论意义。一方面，所构建的英汉时体系统填补了可见文献中英汉语时体系统没有同步统一解释的空白，时体蕴涵关系的发现既弥补了学界以往对时与体关联性研究不足的缺憾，也丰富了时体的类型学成果，对时体的进一步跨语言类型学研究提供了启示和借鉴。另一方面，本文基于事件时间E和参照时间R均可为时点和时段的描写方法，建立了一个具有跨语言普适性的ERS时体逻辑模型，既丰富和完善了ERS理论，也为时体的个性和共性研究提供了理论框架。
本研究也具有一定的应用价值，时体与ERS的语义关联探讨澄清了以往传统语法中有关时与体的疑惑和难题，可为英语教学、汉语教学、计算机自然语言处理以及对外汉语教学等领域提供一些可资参考的理论指导。
Tense and aspect have been hotly debated topics and research challenges incontemporary linguistics. Much more researches and debates have converged at aspectcompared with tense, and no agreement has been reached on the core issue in theresearch of aspect. The concept of aspect has been adopted to capture the temporalfeatures and all kinds of situations in reality expressed by components or structures atdifferent levels of grammar, such as verb aspect, lexical aspect and situation aspect at theverb level, and grammatical aspect and viewpoint aspect at the sentence level. Theconcepts at the verb level are applied to describing the temporal semantic features orinherent situations of verbs or VPs, while those at the sentence level are used to expounddifferent processes or states of reality situations indicated by various grammatical meansin sentences.
The approaches to tense and aspect abroad are developed mainly from cognitivelinguistics, linguistic typology, theoretical system of aspect, formal semantics, ERStemporal theories, and so on. But there are overlaps among the subclasses of the aspectsystems established by most researchers, and precise aspectual oppositions and logicalaspect system have not formed yet. Furthermore, the tense and aspect of English iswaiting to be logically systematized.
The researches on tense and aspect in China are mainly focused on whether MandarinChinese has tense and aspect categories, and if there are, what they are like. But the tenseand aspect systems established by scholars are quite different, and some scholars eventake over the concepts of tense and aspect directly from English and Russian. The tenseand aspect systems and their relations of Mandarin Chinese are to be clarified.
In general, the common approach to tense and aspect and the ERS tense-aspecttheories or models in the previous researches are far from perfect. A comprehensive ERSlogical model to describe tense and aspect across languages is urgent to be established.The above-mentioned problems can be attributed to several factors, such as settingdifferent definitions to tense and aspect, neglecting different aspect types across languages, and lacking persuasive tense-aspect logical framework.
For the current researches and problems of English-Chinese tense and aspect systemsat home and abroad, the present research discusses tense and aspect simultaneously inorder to seek the relation between language forms and tense-aspect meanings. We definetense and aspect as semantic categories at sentence level, and take a research paradigm ofcombing functionalism and formalism. The study takes in related theories from linguistictypology, cognitive linguistics, formal semantics and generative grammar, aiming toprovide a comprehensive description and explanation.
The research makes contributions to several aspects: cross-language tense-aspectencoding devices and tense-aspect types, English-Chinese-Russian tense-aspect systemsand implicational universals, tense-aspect ERS logical model and its application, whichcan be embodied in the following:
(1) Tense and aspect across languages can be encoded through affix, particle,auxiliary, tone, non-affix morpheme, and anti-passive voice. Though the encodingdevices of tense and aspect vary a lot in the world languages, iconicity principleespecially sequence iconicity plays an important role in the relation between tense-aspectencoding ways and meanings. In terms of cross-language tense types, English andChinese do not have typical dichotomy-tense or ternary-tense, but they both have certainways to express past tense, present tense and future tense. From the perspective of thedegree of grammaticalization, English shows past tense vs. non-past tense opposition,while Chinese exhibits future tense vs. non-future tense opposition. As to aspect typescross languages, both English and Chinese have realis aspect vs. irrealis aspectopposition which is based on temporal viewpoint; while the Slavic languages of Russian,Polish and Czech have perfective aspect vs. imperfective aspect opposition which isbased on spatial viewpoint. The two aspect types belong to superordinate aspectualoppositions and each aspect has its own subordinate aspectual meanings.
(2) In terms of the relation between tense and aspect, English, Chinese, Burmese,Manipuri, and Tukang Besi conform to the logical relation of future tense implicatingirrealis aspect, while Russian, Polish and Czech follow the logical relation of presenttense implicating imperfective aspect. A tetrachoric table is attested among the two logical implications. The former excludes future tense+realis aspect, while the laterrules out present tense+perfective aspect. The difference in English-Chinese andRussian aspect types and their logical implications can be attributed to their differentcognitive patterns of time. English and Chinese belong to moving-ego model language orAscending Time language, while Russian is moving-time model language or DescendingTime language. The common point of the two cognitive patterns of time is they bothadopt static reference object. English and Chinese choose time points or time intervals atthe time axis as the reference, namely temporal viewpoint aspect, while Russian selectsthe points or intervals in the static real world as the reference, i.e. spatial viewpointaspect.
(3) The tense-aspect systems in English, Chinese and Russian can be represented byERS relations, and all of their ERS tense-aspect structures fall in the ERS logical model.In this research, the total number of ERS tense-aspect structures in both English andChinese accounts for33, which is a semantic universal of English-Chinese tense andaspect. The number of both tense-aspect co-occurrences and ERS relations in Russian isfar less than English and Chinese. The reason lies in that English-Chinese realis/irrealisaspects have nothing to do with RE relation which only hold relations to the subordinateaspects, but Russian perfective/imperfective aspects and their respective subordinateaspects are determined by RE relations, that is, RE relations restrict both superordinateand subordinate aspects, so those RE relations which do not meet the requirement areruled out. The research shows that the tense-aspect ERS model is quite effective insolving some tense and aspect problems in English and Chinese.
(4) Time adverbials in English and Chinese simple sentences have something both incommon and difference in semantic and syntactic grounds. In the aspect of semanticcommonality, there is no direct relation between time adverbials and tense in bothEnglish and Chinese simple sentences, and time adverbials function as modifiers tomodify either reference time R or event time E in nature. In both English and Chinese,the conflict between the reference time R modified by time adverbial and the R triggeredby tense will bring about ungrammatical sentences. In the aspect of semantic difference,English sentence-initial time adverbials tend to modify R, and the sentence-end ones may modify either R or E, while Chinese sentence-initial time adverbials may modify either Ror E because of word order restriction. In English that time adverbials can modify eitherR or E may lead to ambiguous sentences, while in Chinese ambiguous sentencesincluding sentence-initial time adverbial and the particle guo, whether guo binds orintroduces a situation variable not only triggers ambiguity but also decides whethersentence-initial time adverbial modifies R or E. Syntactically, both English and Chinesetime adverbials can be regarded as adjuncts, and the time adverbials to modify R areadjoined to AspP, while the ones to modify E are adjoined to VP or vP. Chinese timeadverbials move leftward to sentence-initial position motivated by topicalization. TheIsomorphic Principle is not a completely universal principle in Chinese for decidingoperator scope because inverse scope interpretation is allowed sometimes in Chinese.
English time adverbial excluding the ones to express frequency (or Chinese timecomplement) is a kind of non-selective variable binding operator, and tense operator andnegation operator belong to simple statement variable binding operator, while aspectoperator is a kind of selective variable binding operator. When different types ofoperators co-occur in logical formula, there are two restrictions: on the one hand, thescopes of tense operator, sentence aspect operator and verb aspect operator will alwaysbe arranged from wide scope to narrow scope; on the other hand, the adjacent operatorsneed to observe the Semantic Compatibility Principle (SCP), that is, the semanticcompatibility of the adjacent operators or the variants they bind is a necessary conditionfor acceptable logical formula and sentence.
This study has made a certain theoretical breakthrough in linguistic typology andgeneral linguistics. On the one hand, English-Chinese tense-aspect systems weestablished fill in the gap that English-Chinese tense and aspect are seldom studied at thesame time, and the tense and aspect implications not only make up the researchinsufficiency of the relation between tense and aspect but also enrich the typologicalachievement in tense and aspect, which provide some meaningful inspirations andreferences to future study in tense-aspect across languages. On the other hand, based onthe fact that event time E and reference time R can either be time point or time interval,we have established an ERS tense-aspect logical model, which not only improves the previous ERS theories but also presents a theoretical framework for the research oftense-aspect individuality and universality.
Moreover, this study has some practical values. The detailed discussion of thesemantic relevance of tense-aspect to ERS has revealed some puzzles and problems inthe former traditional grammar, which is helpful for some fields, including Englishteaching, Mandarin Chinese teaching, computer natural language processing and TCFL.
国外学者主要从认知语言学、语言类型学、体的理论系统、形式语义学以及ERS时间理论等几个方面对时或体进行了探讨，但大多数学者们所构建的体系统中的子类存在重叠现象，并未形成较严格的体对立，体系统缺乏逻辑性，即使是英语，时与体也未得到逻辑系统化。
国内学者的研究主要集中在现代汉语是否有时与体范畴以及时与体系统的建立方面，学者们所建立的时体系统各不相同，同时也存在从英语和俄语中搬用时体概念的现象，汉语的时体系统以及时与体之间的关系仍需进一步明晰。
总体来看，以往的一般时体研究以及采用ERS时体理论的研究仍不完善，学界至今尚未建立起一个具有跨语言普适性的ERS逻辑模型。这些问题主要与时与体的定义差异、没有区分不同体类型的语言以及时体系统构建缺乏较严格的逻辑框架等原因有关。
鉴于国内外对英汉时体系统的研究现状和存在问题，为最大限度地寻求语言形式与时体意义之间的关系，本文采取时体统一研究观，将时与体定义为句子层面的语义范畴，采用功能和形式相结合的研究范式，吸取语言类型学、认知语言学、形式语义学以及生成语法中的有关理论或假设，以求描写和解释的全面性。
本文在世界语言时体编码手段与时体类型、英汉俄时体系统与时体蕴涵共性、时体ERS逻辑模型的构建及应用等方面取得了一些创新，具体为以下几点：
（1）时体的跨语言编码方式主要包括词缀、功能词、助动词、音调、非词缀语素以及逆被动态，尽管时体的跨语言编码呈多样性，但从编码方式与时体意义的关系来看，象似性原则尤其是顺序象似很大程度上起了促动作用。从世界语言的时类型角度看，英语和汉语均是非典型的二分时和三分时，但都有过去时、现在时和将来时的表达手段。如果从语法化程度看，英语的时是“过去/非过去”的对立，汉语的时是“将来/非将来”的对立。从世界语言的体类型角度看，英汉语的体均是基于时间视点的“现实体/非现实体”对立，斯拉夫语族的俄语、波兰语以及捷克语中的体是基于空间视点的“完整体/非完整体”对立，这两种体类型都属于高层次的上位体义对立，每种体义都包含各自的下位体义。
（2）在时与体关系上，英语、汉语、缅甸语、曼尼普尔语以及图康伯西语遵循“将来时蕴涵非现实体”的逻辑关系，俄语、波兰语以及捷克语遵循“现在时蕴涵非完整体”的逻辑关系，这两条逻辑蕴涵关系中分别出现“将来时+现实体”和“现在时+完整体”不合法的“四缺一”格局。英汉语和俄语的体类型差异以及时体蕴涵关系可归因于不同的时间认知模式。英汉语属于自我移动模式或上行时间语言，俄语属于时间移动模式或下行时间语言，但两种模式的共同点是均选择静态参照物，英汉语以静态时轴上的点或段为参照，即时间视点体，俄语以静态现实世界（空间）中的点或段为参照，即空间视点体。
（3）英语、汉语及俄语的时体系统均可用ERS关系加以刻画，这三种语言的基本ERS时体结构全部在ERS逻辑模型中。根据本文的描写，英汉语时体意义所实现的ERS关系均为33种，这是英汉语时体表达的一种语义共性。俄语的时体组配数量与时体ERS关系数量远远少于英汉语，原因在于，英汉语现实体/非现实体的对立与RE关系无关，RE关系只对下位体义起单一限制作用，而俄语完整体/非完整体以及各自下位体义均由RE关系决定，RE关系同时影响上位体义和下位体义，起双重限制作用，从而排除了不符合要求的ERS关系。研究表明，时体ERS模型具有较强的阐释力，英汉语中某些与时体有关的难题可以通过ERS模型得到较好的解释。
（4）英语和汉语简单句中的时间状语在语义-句法上有共性也有差异。在语义共性方面，英汉时间状语与时均无直接关系，时间状语本质上是一个修饰参照时间R或事件时间E的修饰语；英汉时间状语所修饰的参照时间R与句子的时所触发的参照时间R发生冲突均会生成不合法语句。在语义差异方面，英语句首时间状语倾向于修饰R，句尾的则可修饰R或E，而汉语由于语序限制，句首时间状语可修饰R或E；英语时间状语修饰R或E会引发句子歧义，而在含有句首时间状语和时间助词“过”的汉语歧义句中，“过”约束还是引入一情状变量既是歧义原因，也是决定句首时间状语修饰R或E的必要条件。在句法表现上，英汉时间状语均可看作附加语，修饰R的时间状语嫁接在AspP上，修饰E的则嫁接在VP或vP上，汉语句首时间状语则经话题化驱动前移而成。“结构同构原则”并非是汉语中制约算子取域的绝对普适性原则，因为逆序辖域解读方式在汉语中有时也是允许的。
英语非频率性时间状语（或汉语时量补语）是一种非选择性变量约束算子，时算子和否定算子属于简单命题变量约束算子，体算子则是选择性变量约束算子。当不同类型的算子在同一逻辑式中共现时，逻辑式有两个限制：时算子、句子体算子和动词体算子的辖域总会构成一个从宽域到窄域的等级；辖域等级上的相邻算子需遵守“语义兼容性原则”，相邻算子或其所约束的变量之间的语义兼容性是逻辑式和语句均合法的必要条件。
本研究具有语言类型学和普通语言学的理论意义。一方面，所构建的英汉时体系统填补了可见文献中英汉语时体系统没有同步统一解释的空白，时体蕴涵关系的发现既弥补了学界以往对时与体关联性研究不足的缺憾，也丰富了时体的类型学成果，对时体的进一步跨语言类型学研究提供了启示和借鉴。另一方面，本文基于事件时间E和参照时间R均可为时点和时段的描写方法，建立了一个具有跨语言普适性的ERS时体逻辑模型，既丰富和完善了ERS理论，也为时体的个性和共性研究提供了理论框架。
本研究也具有一定的应用价值，时体与ERS的语义关联探讨澄清了以往传统语法中有关时与体的疑惑和难题，可为英语教学、汉语教学、计算机自然语言处理以及对外汉语教学等领域提供一些可资参考的理论指导。
Tense and aspect have been hotly debated topics and research challenges incontemporary linguistics. Much more researches and debates have converged at aspectcompared with tense, and no agreement has been reached on the core issue in theresearch of aspect. The concept of aspect has been adopted to capture the temporalfeatures and all kinds of situations in reality expressed by components or structures atdifferent levels of grammar, such as verb aspect, lexical aspect and situation aspect at theverb level, and grammatical aspect and viewpoint aspect at the sentence level. Theconcepts at the verb level are applied to describing the temporal semantic features orinherent situations of verbs or VPs, while those at the sentence level are used to expounddifferent processes or states of reality situations indicated by various grammatical meansin sentences.
The approaches to tense and aspect abroad are developed mainly from cognitivelinguistics, linguistic typology, theoretical system of aspect, formal semantics, ERStemporal theories, and so on. But there are overlaps among the subclasses of the aspectsystems established by most researchers, and precise aspectual oppositions and logicalaspect system have not formed yet. Furthermore, the tense and aspect of English iswaiting to be logically systematized.
The researches on tense and aspect in China are mainly focused on whether MandarinChinese has tense and aspect categories, and if there are, what they are like. But the tenseand aspect systems established by scholars are quite different, and some scholars eventake over the concepts of tense and aspect directly from English and Russian. The tenseand aspect systems and their relations of Mandarin Chinese are to be clarified.
In general, the common approach to tense and aspect and the ERS tense-aspecttheories or models in the previous researches are far from perfect. A comprehensive ERSlogical model to describe tense and aspect across languages is urgent to be established.The above-mentioned problems can be attributed to several factors, such as settingdifferent definitions to tense and aspect, neglecting different aspect types across languages, and lacking persuasive tense-aspect logical framework.
For the current researches and problems of English-Chinese tense and aspect systemsat home and abroad, the present research discusses tense and aspect simultaneously inorder to seek the relation between language forms and tense-aspect meanings. We definetense and aspect as semantic categories at sentence level, and take a research paradigm ofcombing functionalism and formalism. The study takes in related theories from linguistictypology, cognitive linguistics, formal semantics and generative grammar, aiming toprovide a comprehensive description and explanation.
The research makes contributions to several aspects: cross-language tense-aspectencoding devices and tense-aspect types, English-Chinese-Russian tense-aspect systemsand implicational universals, tense-aspect ERS logical model and its application, whichcan be embodied in the following:
(1) Tense and aspect across languages can be encoded through affix, particle,auxiliary, tone, non-affix morpheme, and anti-passive voice. Though the encodingdevices of tense and aspect vary a lot in the world languages, iconicity principleespecially sequence iconicity plays an important role in the relation between tense-aspectencoding ways and meanings. In terms of cross-language tense types, English andChinese do not have typical dichotomy-tense or ternary-tense, but they both have certainways to express past tense, present tense and future tense. From the perspective of thedegree of grammaticalization, English shows past tense vs. non-past tense opposition,while Chinese exhibits future tense vs. non-future tense opposition. As to aspect typescross languages, both English and Chinese have realis aspect vs. irrealis aspectopposition which is based on temporal viewpoint; while the Slavic languages of Russian,Polish and Czech have perfective aspect vs. imperfective aspect opposition which isbased on spatial viewpoint. The two aspect types belong to superordinate aspectualoppositions and each aspect has its own subordinate aspectual meanings.
(2) In terms of the relation between tense and aspect, English, Chinese, Burmese,Manipuri, and Tukang Besi conform to the logical relation of future tense implicatingirrealis aspect, while Russian, Polish and Czech follow the logical relation of presenttense implicating imperfective aspect. A tetrachoric table is attested among the two logical implications. The former excludes future tense+realis aspect, while the laterrules out present tense+perfective aspect. The difference in English-Chinese andRussian aspect types and their logical implications can be attributed to their differentcognitive patterns of time. English and Chinese belong to moving-ego model language orAscending Time language, while Russian is moving-time model language or DescendingTime language. The common point of the two cognitive patterns of time is they bothadopt static reference object. English and Chinese choose time points or time intervals atthe time axis as the reference, namely temporal viewpoint aspect, while Russian selectsthe points or intervals in the static real world as the reference, i.e. spatial viewpointaspect.
(3) The tense-aspect systems in English, Chinese and Russian can be represented byERS relations, and all of their ERS tense-aspect structures fall in the ERS logical model.In this research, the total number of ERS tense-aspect structures in both English andChinese accounts for33, which is a semantic universal of English-Chinese tense andaspect. The number of both tense-aspect co-occurrences and ERS relations in Russian isfar less than English and Chinese. The reason lies in that English-Chinese realis/irrealisaspects have nothing to do with RE relation which only hold relations to the subordinateaspects, but Russian perfective/imperfective aspects and their respective subordinateaspects are determined by RE relations, that is, RE relations restrict both superordinateand subordinate aspects, so those RE relations which do not meet the requirement areruled out. The research shows that the tense-aspect ERS model is quite effective insolving some tense and aspect problems in English and Chinese.
(4) Time adverbials in English and Chinese simple sentences have something both incommon and difference in semantic and syntactic grounds. In the aspect of semanticcommonality, there is no direct relation between time adverbials and tense in bothEnglish and Chinese simple sentences, and time adverbials function as modifiers tomodify either reference time R or event time E in nature. In both English and Chinese,the conflict between the reference time R modified by time adverbial and the R triggeredby tense will bring about ungrammatical sentences. In the aspect of semantic difference,English sentence-initial time adverbials tend to modify R, and the sentence-end ones may modify either R or E, while Chinese sentence-initial time adverbials may modify either Ror E because of word order restriction. In English that time adverbials can modify eitherR or E may lead to ambiguous sentences, while in Chinese ambiguous sentencesincluding sentence-initial time adverbial and the particle guo, whether guo binds orintroduces a situation variable not only triggers ambiguity but also decides whethersentence-initial time adverbial modifies R or E. Syntactically, both English and Chinesetime adverbials can be regarded as adjuncts, and the time adverbials to modify R areadjoined to AspP, while the ones to modify E are adjoined to VP or vP. Chinese timeadverbials move leftward to sentence-initial position motivated by topicalization. TheIsomorphic Principle is not a completely universal principle in Chinese for decidingoperator scope because inverse scope interpretation is allowed sometimes in Chinese.
English time adverbial excluding the ones to express frequency (or Chinese timecomplement) is a kind of non-selective variable binding operator, and tense operator andnegation operator belong to simple statement variable binding operator, while aspectoperator is a kind of selective variable binding operator. When different types ofoperators co-occur in logical formula, there are two restrictions: on the one hand, thescopes of tense operator, sentence aspect operator and verb aspect operator will alwaysbe arranged from wide scope to narrow scope; on the other hand, the adjacent operatorsneed to observe the Semantic Compatibility Principle (SCP), that is, the semanticcompatibility of the adjacent operators or the variants they bind is a necessary conditionfor acceptable logical formula and sentence.
This study has made a certain theoretical breakthrough in linguistic typology andgeneral linguistics. On the one hand, English-Chinese tense-aspect systems weestablished fill in the gap that English-Chinese tense and aspect are seldom studied at thesame time, and the tense and aspect implications not only make up the researchinsufficiency of the relation between tense and aspect but also enrich the typologicalachievement in tense and aspect, which provide some meaningful inspirations andreferences to future study in tense-aspect across languages. On the other hand, based onthe fact that event time E and reference time R can either be time point or time interval,we have established an ERS tense-aspect logical model, which not only improves the previous ERS theories but also presents a theoretical framework for the research oftense-aspect individuality and universality.
Moreover, this study has some practical values. The detailed discussion of thesemantic relevance of tense-aspect to ERS has revealed some puzzles and problems inthe former traditional grammar, which is helpful for some fields, including Englishteaching, Mandarin Chinese teaching, computer natural language processing and TCFL.
引文
Alexiadou, A.1997. Adverb Placement[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Allott, A.J.1965. Categories for the description of the verbal syntagma in Burmese[A]. In G. B.Milner and E. é. J. A. Henderson(eds.), Indo-Pacific linguistic studies, Vol.2[C]. New York: NorthHolland Publishing Company,283-309.
Anderson, S. R.&E. L. Keenan.1990. Deixis[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology andSyntactic Description, Vol.3[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,259-309.
Andrews, A. D.2007. The major functions of the noun phrase[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1: Clause Structure[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,132-223.
Aoun, J.&Y. H. Li.1993. Syntax of Scope[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bach, E.1986.The algebra of events[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy9:5-16.
Bache, C.1985. Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to Present-day English[M].Odense: Odense University Press.
Bennett, M&B. Partee.1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English[M]. Bloomington,Indiana: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Berge, A. M. S.1997. Topic and Discourse Structure in West Greenlandic AgreementConstructions[D]. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.
Bhat, D. N. S.1999. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Binnick, R. I.1991. Time and the Verbs: A guide to Tense and Aspect[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Binnick, R. I.(ed.)2012. The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect[C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Bohnhoff, L. E.1986. Y g Dii (Duru) pronouns[A]. In U. Wiesemann(ed.), Pronominal Systems[C].Tübingen: Gunter Narr,108-130.
Borik, O.2002. Aspect and Reference Time[M]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Borik, O.&T. Reinhart.2004. Telicity and perfectivity: two independent systems[A]. In L. Hunyadi,G. Rákosi, and E. Tóth(eds.), The Eighth Symposium on Logic and Language: PreliminaryPapers[C]. Debrecen: The Organizing Committee of LoLa,12-33.
Botne, R.2012. Remoteness Distinctions[A]. In R. I. Binnick(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tenseand Aspect[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,536-562.
Bott, O.2008. Doing It Again and Again May Be Difficult, But It Depends on What You AreDoing[A]. In N. Abner&J. Bishop (eds.), Proceedings of the27th West Coast Conference onFormal Linguistics[C]. Somerville, MA,63-71.
Brennan, J.&L. Pylkk nen.2008. Processing Events: Behavioral and Neuromagnetic Correlates ofAspectual Coercion[J]. Brain&Language106:132-143.
Brown, K.2006. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,2nd edition[Z]. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bybee, J. L.1985a. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between the Meaning and Form[M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L.1985b. Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations[A]. In J. Haiman(ed.),Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,11-48.
Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins&W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, andModality in the Languages of the World[M]. Chicago and London: The University of ChicagoPress.
Bybee, J. L.2011. Markedness: Iconicity, Economy, and Frequency[A]. In J. J. Song(ed.), The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Typology[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,131-147.
Carlson, G.1977. Reference to kinds in English[D]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Carlson, R.1994. A Grammar of Supyire[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chierchia, G.1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter[A]. In S.Rothstein(ed.), Events and Grammar[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,53-103.
Childs, G. T.1995. A Grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic Language[M]. Berlin and New York:Muton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use[M]. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1995. The Minimalist Program[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, S.&A. Timberlake.1990. Tense, aspect, and mood[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description, Vol.3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,202-259.
Chvany, C. V. Verbal aspect, discourse saliency, and the so-called Perfect of result in modernRussian[A]. In N. B. Thelin(ed.), Verbal aspect in discourse: contributions to the semantics oftime and temporal perspective in slavic and non-slavic languages[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,213-235.
Cinque, G.1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B.1985. Tense[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B.1976. Aspect[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooreman, A.1994. A Functional Typology of Antipassives[A]. In B. Fox and P. J. Hopper(eds.),Voice: Form and Function[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,49-88.
Costa, J.1997. On the Behavior of Adverbs in Sentence-Final Context[J]. The Linguistic Review14:43-68.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cygan, J.1972. Tense and aspect in English and Slavic[J]. Anglica Wratislaviensia2:5-12.
Dahl,.1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-unbounded) distinction[A]. In P.Tedeschi and A. Zaenen(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.14: Tense and Aspect[C]. New York:Academic Press,79-90.
Dahl,.1984. Temporal distance: remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems[A]. In B.Butterworth, B. Comrie, and. Dahl(eds.), Explanations for Language Universals[C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton,105-122.
Dahl,.1985. Tense and Aspect System[M]. Bath, UK.: The Bath Press.
Dahl,.2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological perspective[A]. In.Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter,3-25.
Davidson, D.1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences[A]. In N. Rescher(ed.), The Logic ofDecision and Action[C]. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press,81-95.
Declerck, R.1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Declerck, R.2006. The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Volume1: The Grammar of the EnglishTense System[M]. Berlin/London: Mouton de Gruyter.
Depraetere, I.2007.(A)telic ity and intentionality[J]. Linguistics45:243-269.
Dickey, S. M.2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect[M]. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Dik, S. C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part1: The Structure of the Clause,2ndedition[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W.1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dixon, R. M. W.1979. Ergativity[J]. Language55:59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W.1994. Ergativity[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.
D lling, J.2003. Aspectual (Re-)Interpretation: Structural Representation and Processing[A]. In H.H rtl&H. Tappe(eds.), Mediating between Concepts and Grammar[C]. Berlin, New York:Mouton de Gruyter,303-322.
D lling, J.2011. Aspectual Coercion and Eventuality Structure[A]. To appear in K. Robering&V.Engerer(eds.), Verbal Semantics[C].http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~doelling/pdf/aspectual_coercion.pdf.
Donohue, M.1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowing, A.&P. Locke.2002. A University Course in English Grammar [M]. London: Routledge.
Dowty, D.1977. Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfectiveprogressive[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy1:45-77.
Dowty, D. R.1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel PublishingCompany.
Dryer, M. S.1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations[J]. Language68:81-138.
Dryer, M. S.2009. The branching direction theory revisited[A]. In S. Scalise, E. Magni&A.Bisetto(eds.), Universals of Language Today[C]. Berlin: Springer,185-207.
Egg, M.2005. Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena[M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Enc, M.1987. Anchoring conditions for tense[J]. Linguistic Inquiry18:633-657.
Ernst, T.2004. The Syntax of Adjuncts[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V.&M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[M]. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.
Filip, H.1994. Aspect and the semantics of noun phrases[A]. In Vet, C.&C. Vetters(eds.), Tense andAspect in Discourse[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,227-256.
Filip, H.1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference[M]. New York: Routledge, Taylorand Francis Group.
Firestone, H. L.1965. Description and classification of Sirionó[M]. London: Mouton.
Fleischman, S.1982. The future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleischman, S.1982. The past and the future: Are they coming or going?[A]. In M. Macaulay etal.(eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C].Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society,322-334.
Fleischman, S.1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor[J]. Studies in Language13:1-50.
Forsyth, J.1970. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guajardo, G.2010. The Syntax of Temporal Interpretation in Embedded Clauses[D]. Missoula, MT:The University of Montana.
Haegeman, L.1989. Be going to and will: a pragmatic account[J]. Journal of Linguistics25:291-317.
Haider, H.2000. Adverb placement: convergence of structure and licensing[J]. Theoretical Linguistics26:95-134.
Hale, K.1970. The Passive and Ergative in Language Change: The Australian case[A]. In S. A. Wurmand D. Laycock(eds.), Pacific linguistic studies in honor of Arthur Capell[C]. Canberra: ANU,757-781.
Haspelmath, M.1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages[M].München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Haspelmath, M.2006. Universals of word order[OL].http://email.eva.mpg.de/-haspelmt/6.WordOrder.pdf (accessed on15/12/2011).
Heim, I.1982. The Semantics of Definites and Indefinites[D]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Hengeveld, K.1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar[J]. Journal of Linguistics25:127-157.
Hengeveld, K.2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect[A]. In H. Narrog and B. Heine(eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,580-594.
Hewson, J.&V. Bubenik.1997. Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology,Diachrony[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hewson, J.2012. Tense[A]. In R. I. Binnick(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect[C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,507-535.
Higginbotham, J.2006. The anaphoric theory of tense[A]. In M. Gibson&J. Howell(eds.),Prodeedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory16[C]. CLC Publications, Cornell University,Ithaca, NY,59-76.
Higginbotham, J.2009. Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinrichs, E.1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in English[D].Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hopper, P. J.1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse[A]. In T. Givón(ed.), Discourse and Syntax,Vol.12[C]. New York: Academic Press,213-241.
Hopper, P. J.1982. Aspect between Discourse and Grammar: An Introductory Essay for theVolume[A]. In P. J. Hopper(ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics&Pragmatics[C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,3-18.
Hornstein, N.1981. The Study of meaning in natural language: Three approaches to tense[A]. In N.Hornstein and D. Lightfoot(eds.), Explanation in Linguistics[C]. London: Longman,116-151.
Hornstein, N.1993. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar[M]. The MIT Press: CambridgeMA.
Hu, J., H. Pan, and L. Xu.2001. Is there a finite-nonfinite distinction in Chinese[J]. Linguistics39:1117-1148.
Huang, C. T.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar[D]. Cambridge, MA:MIT.
Huddleston, R.1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Hymes, D.1975. From space to time in Kiksht[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics41:313-329.
Jackendoff, R. S.1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, J. T.1977. Yapese Reference Grammar[M]. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Johnson, M.1981. A unified temporal theory of tense and aspect[A]. In P. J. Tedeschi&A.Zeanen(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.14[C]. New York: Academic Press,145-171.
Joos, M.1964. The English Verb: form and meaning[M]. Madison: The University of WisconsinPress.
Kalmar, I.1977. The Antipassive in Inuktitut[J]. Etudes Inuit1:129-142.
Kibort, A.2009. Modelling the perfect, acategory between tense and aspect[A]. In Current Issues inUnity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the papers selected from the CIL18th[C]. Seoul:The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Kiparsky, P.1968. Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax[J]. Foundations of Language4:30-57.
Klein, W.1994. Time in Language[M]. London/New York: Routledge.
Kratzer, A.1989. An investigation into the lumps of thought[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy12:607-653.
Kratzer, A.1991. The representation of focus[A]. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich(eds.),Semantik/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research[C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,825-834.
Kr mer, M. and Wunderlich, D.1999. Transitivity alternations in Yucatec and the correlation betweenaspect and argument roles[J]. Linguistics37:431-479.
Krifka, M.1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in EventSemantics[A]. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas(eds.), Semantics andContextual Expression[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publication,75-115.
Krifka, M.1992. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and TemporalConstitution[A]. In I. A. Sag&A. Szabolsci(eds.), Lexical Matters[C]. Stanford: CSLI,29-53.
Kruisinga, E. A.1931. A Handbook of Present-day English,5th edition[M]. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Kuno, S.1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language[M]. Mass: The MIT Press.
Landman, F.2000. Events and Plurality: the Jerusalem Lectures[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landman, F.&S. Rothstein.2010. Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectualfor-phrases[A]. In M. R. Hovav, E. Doron, and I. Sichel(eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, andEvent Structure[C]. New York: Oxford University Press,229-251.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2000. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2002. Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar,2ndedition[M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Larson, R. K.1988. On the Double Object Construction[J]. Linguistic Inquiry19:335-391.
Lecarme, J.1999. Nominal tense and tense theory[A]. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin and J. M.Marandin(eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics2[C]. The Hague: Thesus,333-354.
Leinonen, M.1982. Russian aspect,“temporal’naja lokalizacija”, and definiteness/indefiniteness[D].Helsinki.
Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson.1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar[M].Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lin, J. W.2000. On the Temporal Meaning of the Verbal-le in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics1:109-133.
Lin, J.W.2003. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics12:254-311.
Lindenlaub, J.2006. How to talk about the future: A study of future time reference with particularfocus on the Hoc k language[D]. Erfurt: University of Erfurt.
Lojenga, K. C.1993. The writing and reading of tone in Bantu languages[J]. Notes on Literacy19:1-19.
Lyons, J.1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maienborn, C.2010. Event Semantics[A]. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner(eds.),Semantics: An international Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol.1[C]. Berlin, New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mani, I., J. Pustejovsky&R. Gaizauskas.2005. The language of time: a reader[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Matthews, G. H.1965. Hidatsa Syntax[M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Matthews, P. H.1997. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics[Z]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
McConnell-Ginet, S.1982. Adverbs and Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic Theory[J].Language58:144-184.
McGilvray, J. A.1991. Tense, Reference, and Worldmaking[M]. Montreal&Kingston:McGill-Queen s University Press.
Michaelis, L. A.1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-time Reference[M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Michaelis, L.A.2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectualcoercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics15:1-67.
Moens, M.1987. Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference[D]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Noonan, M.1992. A grammar of Lango[M]. Berlin: Muton de Gruyter.
Noonan, M.2007. Complementation[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology and SyntacticDescription, Vol.2: Complex Constructions[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,52-150.
Nordlinger, R. and L. Sadler.2004. Nominal Tense in Crosslinguistic Perspective[J]. Language80:776-806.
Nurse, D.2008. Tense and Aspect in Bantu[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olsen, M. B.1994. A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect[D]. Evanston,Illinois: Northwestern University.
Owens, J.1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia)[M]. Hamburg: Buske.
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb[M]. London: Longman Group Limited.
Pan, Haihua.1993. Interaction between adverbial quantification and perfective aspect[A]. In L. S.Stvan(ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-AmericaConference, Northwestern University. Bloomington. Indiana University Linguistics ClubPublications,188-204.
Parsons, T.1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Partee, B. H., A. G. B. ter Meulen&R. E. Wall.1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics[M].Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L. and M. J. Traxler.2006. Underspecification andAspectual Coercion[J]. Discourse Processes42:131-155.
Pi ango, M. M., Winnick, R., Ullah, A. and E. Zurif.2006. Time-course of Semantic Composition:The Case of Aspectual Coercion[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research35:233-244.
Primus, B.2011. Case-Marking Typology[A]. In J. J. Song(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,303-321.
Pulman, S.1997. Aspectual Shift as Type Coercion[J]. Transactions of the Philological Society95:279-317.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Pylkk nen, L.2008. Mismatching Meanings in Brain and Behavior[J]. Language and LinguisticsCompass2:712-738.
Rappaport Hovav, M.&B. Levin.1998. Building verb meanings[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(eds.),The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: Center for theStudy of Language and Information,97-134.
Reh, M.1996. Anywa Language: Description and Internal Reconstructions[M]. K ln: RüdigerK ppe.
Reichenbach, H.1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic[M]. New York: Macmillan Co.
Rothstein, S.2004. Structuring Events[M]. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
Sabel, J.2002. Endemic Tense-Agreement Effects in Malagasy. Paper presented at the AustronesianFormal Linguistics Association9, Cornell University.
Schieberl, M. L.1998. An Explanation for Ergative versus Accusative Languages: An Examination ofInuktitut[D]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Silverstein, M.1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity[A]. In R. M. W. Dixon(ed.), GrammaticalCategories in Australian Languages[C]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,112-171.
Smith, C. S.1991. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, C. S.2005. Time with and without tense[P]. The International Round Table on Tense andModality, Paris.
Sneddon, J. N.1996. Indonesian: a Comprehensive Grammar[M]. London: Routledge.
Soga, M.1983. Tense and Aspect in Modern Colloquial Japanese[M]. Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia Press.
Spreng, B.2010. On the Conditions for Antipassives[J]. Language and Linguistics Compass4:556-575.
Spreng, B.2012. Viewpoint Aspect in Inuktitut: The Syntax and Semantics of Antipassives[D]. Toronto:University of Toronto.
de Swart, H.1993. Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach[M]. New York&London: Garland Publishing, INC.
de Swart, H.1998. Aspect shift and coercion[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16:347-385.
de Swart, H.&Verkuyl, H.1999. Tense and Aspect in Sentence and Discourse[M]. Utrecht,Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Thelin, N. B.(ed.)1990. Verbal aspect in discourse: contributions to the semantics of time andtemporal perspective in slavic and non-slavic languages[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Thompson, E.2005. Time in Natural Language: Syntactic Interfaces with Semantics andDiscourse[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Timberlake, A.2007. Tense, aspect and mood[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology andSyntactic Description, Vol.3: Grammatical Categories and the lexicon[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,280-333.
Trask, R. L.1999. Language: The Basics,2nd edition[M]. London: Routledge.
Travis, L.1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP, paper presented at NELS22. McGill University,Toronto, Canada.
Underhill, R.1976. Turkish Grammar[M]. Mass: The MIT Press.
Van Valin Jr., R. D.2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vendler, Z.1967. Verbs and times[A]. In Z. Vendler(ed.), Linguistics in philosophy[C]. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,199-220.
Verkuyl, H. J.1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects[D]. Dordrecht, Holland: D. ReidelPublishing Co.
Verkuyl, H. J.1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and AtemporalStructure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J.2008. Binary Tense[M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Vet, C.&C. Vetters(eds.).1994. Tense and Aspect in Discourse[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vet, C.2007. The descriptive inadequacy of Reichenbach s tense system: a new proposal[J]. CahiersChronos17:7-26.
Wallace, S.1982. Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories[A]. In P. J.Hopper(ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics&Pragmatics[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,201-223.
Watkins, L. J.1984. A Grammar of Kiowa[M]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Whiteley, W. H.&M. G. Muli.1962. Practical Introduction to Kamba[M]. Nairobi and London:Oxford University Press.
Yule, G.2004. Explaining English Grammar[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zandvoort, R. W.1962. Is aspect an English verbal category[A]. In F. Behre(ed.), Contributions toEnglish Syntax and Phonology[A]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell,1-20.
Ziegeler, D.2007. Arguing the case against coercion[A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. K pcke, T. Berg, and P.Siemund(eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,99-124.
陈立民,2002,汉语的时态和时态成分[J]。语言研究(3):14-31。
陈前瑞,2005,句尾“了”将来时间用法的发展[J]。语言教学与研究(1):66-73。
陈前瑞,2008,汉语体貌研究的类型学视野[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
陈前瑞、王继红,2012,从完成体到最近将来时——类型学的罕见现象与汉语的常见现象[J]。世界汉语教学(2):158-173。
陈平,1988,论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构[J]。中国语文(6):401-421。
陈望道,1978,文法简论[M]。上海:上海教育出版社。
崔雅丽,2011,构式压制对语言异质现象的阐释[J]。外国语文(3):59-62。
戴维.克里斯特尔编,沈家煊译,2000,现代语言学词典[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
戴耀晶,1997,现代汉语时体系统研究[M]。杭州:浙江教育出版社。
董成如、杨才元,2009,构式对词项压制的探索[J]。外语学刊(5):42-46。
董成如,2011,汉语存现句中动词非宾格性的压制解释[J]。现代外语(1):19-26。
房玉清,1992,动态助词“了”“着”“过”的语义特征及其用法比较[J]。汉语学习(1):14-20。
冯成林,1981,试论汉语时间名词和时间副词的划分标准——从“刚才”和“刚”“刚刚”的词性谈起[J]。陕西师范大学学报(3):90-95。
高名凯,1986,汉语语法论[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
龚千炎,1991,谈现代汉语的时制表示和时态表达系统[J]。中国语文(4):251-261。
龚千炎,1995,汉语的时相时制时态[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
顾阳,2008,时态、时制理论与汉语时间参照研究[A]。沈阳,冯胜利(编),载当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C]。北京:商务印书馆,97-119。
郭锐,1993,汉语动词的过程结构[J]。中国语文(6):410-419。
郭锐,1997,过程和非过程——汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型[J]。中国语文(3):162-175。
胡建华、石定栩,2006,量化副词与动态助词“了”和“过”[A]。中国语文杂志社(编),载语法研究和探索(十三)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,185-195。
胡建华,2007,否定、焦点与辖域[J]。中国语文(2):99-111。
黄洁,2009,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(1):9-13。
蒋严、潘海华,2005,形式语义学引论[M]。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
金理新,2005,上古汉语形态研究[M]。合肥:黄山书社。
金立鑫,1998,试论“了”的时体特征[J]。语言教学与研究(1):105-119。
金立鑫,2002,词尾“了”的时体意义及其句法条件[J]。世界汉语教学(1):34-43。
金立鑫,2003,“S了”的时体意义及其句法条件[J]。语言教学与研究(2):38-48。
金立鑫,2004,汉语时体表现的特点及其研究方法[A]。竟成(编),载汉语时体系统国际研讨会论文集[C]。上海:百家出版社,54-66。
金立鑫,2008a,对Reichenbach时体理论的一点补充[J]。中国语文(5):433-440。
金立鑫,2008b,试论行为类型、情状类型及其与体的关系[J]。语言教学与研究(4):1-9。
金立鑫,2009,“时”“体”范畴的本质特征及其蕴含共性[A]。程工、刘丹青(编),载汉语的形式与功能研究[C]。北京:商务印书馆,322-345。
金立鑫、邵菁,2010, Charles N. Li等“论汉语完成体标记词‘了’的语用驱动因素”中某些观点商榷[J]。当代语言学(4):319-325。
金立鑫,2011,什么是语言类型学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
金立鑫、于秀金,2012,左右分枝结构配置的功能分析[J]。外语教学与研究(4):496-509。
竟成,1993,关于动态助词“了”的语法意义[J]。语文研究(1):52-57。
李临定,1990,现代汉语动词[M]。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
李明晶,2013,现代汉语体貌系统的二元分析：动貌和视点体[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李仕春、艾红娟,2008,山东莒县方言动词的合音变调[J]。语言科学(4):394-397。
李铁根,1999,现代汉语时制研究[M]。沈阳:辽宁大学出版社。
李铁根,2002,“了”、“着”、“过”与汉语时制的表达[J]。语言研究(3):1-13。
李莹、徐杰,2010,形式句法框架下的现代汉语体标记研究[J]。现代外语(4):355-362。
李勇忠,2004,语义压制的转喻理据[J]。外语教学与研究(6):433-437。
李志岭,2010,汉英语时间标记系统语法化对比研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
黎锦熙,1992,新著国语文法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
刘丹青,2001,论元分裂式话题结构初探[A]。范开泰(编)，载语言问题再认识：庆祝张斌先生从教五十周年暨八十华诞[C]。上海：上海教育出版社，146-147。
刘公望,1988,现代汉语的时体助词“的”[J]。汉语学习(4):20-24。
刘勋宁,1988,现代汉语词尾“了”的语法意义[J]。中国语文(5):321-330。
刘勋宁,1990,现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其与词尾“了”的联系[J]。世界汉语教学(2):80-87。
刘勋宁,2002,现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说[J]。世界汉语教学(3):70-79。
刘一之,2001,北京话中的“着(.zhe)”字新探[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
刘宇红、谢亚军,2007,从构式语法看汉语成语的仿用[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(6):10-13。
刘月华,1988,动态助词“过2过1了1”用法比较[J]。语文研究(1):6-16。
陆丙甫,1998,从语义、语用看语法形式的实质[J]。中国语文(5):353-367。
陆俭明,1999,“着”字补议[J]。中国语文(5):331-336。
陆俭明、沈阳,2003,汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1982,中国文法要略[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘主编,1984,现代汉语八百词[Z]。北京:商务印书馆。
马希文,1983,关于动词“了”的弱化形式/.lou/[J]。中国语言学报(1):1-14。
聂建军、尚秀妍,1998,说“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(2):50-52。
彭家法,2009,附加语句法语义研究[M]。合肥：安徽大学出版社。
秦洪武、王克非,2010,论元实现的词汇化解释:英汉语中的位移动词[J]。当代语言学(2):115-125。
秦洪武,2011,英汉语中的类型强制：事件语义视角[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
尚新,2007,英汉体范畴对比研究——语法体的内部对立与中立化[M]。上海:上海人民出版社。
沈家煊,2006a,“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J]。中国语文(4):291-300。
沈家煊,2006b,“糅合”和“截搭”[J]。世界汉语教学(4):5-12。
沈家煊,2012,怎样对比才有说服力以英汉名动对比为例[J]。现代外语(1):1-13。
石毓智,1992,论现代汉语的“体”范畴[J]。中国社会科学(6):183-201。
宋玉柱,1981,关于时间副词“的”和“来着”[J]。中国语文(4):271-276。
宋作艳,2010,类词缀与事件强迫[J]。世界汉语教学(4):446-458。
宋作艳,2011,轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫[J]。中国语文(3):205-217。
孙英杰,2006,现代汉语体系统研究[D]。北京：北京语言大学博士学位论文。
陶寰,1995,论吴语的时间标记[D]。上海:复旦大学博士学位论文。
王还,1998,也说“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(5):5。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
王维贤,1991,“了”字补议[A]。中国语文杂志社(编),载语法研究和探索(五)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,197-214。
王寅,2009,汉语“副名构造”的认知构造语法分析法——基于“压制、突显、传承、整合”的角度[J]。外国语文(4):1-8。
王寅,2011,“新被字构式”的词汇压制解释——对“被自愿”一类新表达的认知构式语法研究[J]。外国语(3):13-20。
王媛,2011,现代汉语动结式的进行体[J]。语言科学(1):70-82。
吴安其,1997,汉藏语使动和完成体前缀的残存与同源的动词词根[J]。民族语文(6):21-32。
吴安其,2002,汉藏语同源研究[M]。北京:中央民族大学出版社。
吴道平,2012,为何形式主义？[J]。外国语(5):2-14。
吴福祥,2005,汉语体标记“了、着”为什么不能强制性使用[J]。当代语言学(3):237-250。
谢成名,2009,从语义范畴的角度看“刚”和“刚才”的区别[J]。世界汉语教学(1):38-48。
谢应光,2007,构式语法与英语体义研究[J]。四川外语学院学报(1):96-101。
邢福义、丁力、汪国胜、张邱林,1990,时间词“刚刚”的多角度考察[J]。中国语文(1):15-23。
熊仲儒,2004,生成句法学中的时制[J]。外语学刊(1):73-78。
熊仲儒,2005,时制、时体与完成式[J]。外国语言文学(4):223-229。
徐烈炯,1988,语法学[A],中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),载中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京：中国大百科全书出版社,467-475。
徐烈炯、刘丹青,2007,话题的结构与功能(增订本)[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
徐通锵,1997,语言论——语义型语言的结构原理和研究方法[M]。长春:东北师范大学出版社。
杨伯峻,1981,古汉语虚词[M]。北京:中华书局。
杨国文,2011,“动词+结果补语”和“动词重叠式”的非时态性质[J]。当代语言学(3):217-225。
易仲良,1987,论英语动词过去时态的实质[J]。外国语(1):16-19.
袁野,2011a,论语篇构式语法及语篇构式压制[J]。外国语(5):38-45。
袁野,2011b,试论汉语的体压制[J]。世界汉语教学(3):334-345。
张斌、胡裕树,1988,汉语语法[A],中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),载中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京:中国大百科全书出版社,177-183。
张济卿,1998a,论现代汉语的时制与体结构（上）[J]。语文研究(3):17-25。
张济卿,1998b,论现代汉语的时制与体结构（下）[J]。语文研究(4):18-26。
张家骅,2004,现代俄语体学[M]。北京:高等教育出版社。
张黎,2003,“界变”论——关于现代汉语“了”及其相关现象[J]。汉语学习(1):17-21。
赵国栋,2008,动词体整合研究[M]。北京:科学出版社。
赵勇,2011,现在完成体构式“时/体”义的再思考[J]。云南农业大学学报(2):112-116。
中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),1988,中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京:中国大百科全书出版社。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编,现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z]。北京:商务印书馆。
周晓冰,1993,充当状语的“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(1):16-19。
周小兵,1996,篇章·语义·句法汉语语法综合研究[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
邹崇理,2000,自然语言逻辑研究[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
左思民,1997,现代汉语体的再认识[D]。上海:上海师范大学博士学位论文。
左思民,1998,试论“体”的本质属性[J]。汉语学习(4):7-11。
左思民,1999,现代汉语中“体”的研究[J]。语文研究(1):9-20。
左思民,2006,普通话动词的“动相”结构与体标记的焦点选择,第十四次现代汉语语法学术讨论会论文。
左思民,2009,动词的动相分类[J]。华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(1):74-82。
Allott, A.J.1965. Categories for the description of the verbal syntagma in Burmese[A]. In G. B.Milner and E. é. J. A. Henderson(eds.), Indo-Pacific linguistic studies, Vol.2[C]. New York: NorthHolland Publishing Company,283-309.
Anderson, S. R.&E. L. Keenan.1990. Deixis[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology andSyntactic Description, Vol.3[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,259-309.
Andrews, A. D.2007. The major functions of the noun phrase[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1: Clause Structure[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,132-223.
Aoun, J.&Y. H. Li.1993. Syntax of Scope[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bach, E.1986.The algebra of events[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy9:5-16.
Bache, C.1985. Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to Present-day English[M].Odense: Odense University Press.
Bennett, M&B. Partee.1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English[M]. Bloomington,Indiana: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Berge, A. M. S.1997. Topic and Discourse Structure in West Greenlandic AgreementConstructions[D]. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.
Bhat, D. N. S.1999. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Binnick, R. I.1991. Time and the Verbs: A guide to Tense and Aspect[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Binnick, R. I.(ed.)2012. The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect[C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Bohnhoff, L. E.1986. Y g Dii (Duru) pronouns[A]. In U. Wiesemann(ed.), Pronominal Systems[C].Tübingen: Gunter Narr,108-130.
Borik, O.2002. Aspect and Reference Time[M]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Borik, O.&T. Reinhart.2004. Telicity and perfectivity: two independent systems[A]. In L. Hunyadi,G. Rákosi, and E. Tóth(eds.), The Eighth Symposium on Logic and Language: PreliminaryPapers[C]. Debrecen: The Organizing Committee of LoLa,12-33.
Botne, R.2012. Remoteness Distinctions[A]. In R. I. Binnick(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tenseand Aspect[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,536-562.
Bott, O.2008. Doing It Again and Again May Be Difficult, But It Depends on What You AreDoing[A]. In N. Abner&J. Bishop (eds.), Proceedings of the27th West Coast Conference onFormal Linguistics[C]. Somerville, MA,63-71.
Brennan, J.&L. Pylkk nen.2008. Processing Events: Behavioral and Neuromagnetic Correlates ofAspectual Coercion[J]. Brain&Language106:132-143.
Brown, K.2006. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,2nd edition[Z]. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bybee, J. L.1985a. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between the Meaning and Form[M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L.1985b. Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations[A]. In J. Haiman(ed.),Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,11-48.
Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins&W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, andModality in the Languages of the World[M]. Chicago and London: The University of ChicagoPress.
Bybee, J. L.2011. Markedness: Iconicity, Economy, and Frequency[A]. In J. J. Song(ed.), The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Typology[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,131-147.
Carlson, G.1977. Reference to kinds in English[D]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Carlson, R.1994. A Grammar of Supyire[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chierchia, G.1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter[A]. In S.Rothstein(ed.), Events and Grammar[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,53-103.
Childs, G. T.1995. A Grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic Language[M]. Berlin and New York:Muton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use[M]. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1995. The Minimalist Program[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, S.&A. Timberlake.1990. Tense, aspect, and mood[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description, Vol.3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,202-259.
Chvany, C. V. Verbal aspect, discourse saliency, and the so-called Perfect of result in modernRussian[A]. In N. B. Thelin(ed.), Verbal aspect in discourse: contributions to the semantics oftime and temporal perspective in slavic and non-slavic languages[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,213-235.
Cinque, G.1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B.1985. Tense[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B.1976. Aspect[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooreman, A.1994. A Functional Typology of Antipassives[A]. In B. Fox and P. J. Hopper(eds.),Voice: Form and Function[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,49-88.
Costa, J.1997. On the Behavior of Adverbs in Sentence-Final Context[J]. The Linguistic Review14:43-68.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cygan, J.1972. Tense and aspect in English and Slavic[J]. Anglica Wratislaviensia2:5-12.
Dahl,.1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-unbounded) distinction[A]. In P.Tedeschi and A. Zaenen(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.14: Tense and Aspect[C]. New York:Academic Press,79-90.
Dahl,.1984. Temporal distance: remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems[A]. In B.Butterworth, B. Comrie, and. Dahl(eds.), Explanations for Language Universals[C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton,105-122.
Dahl,.1985. Tense and Aspect System[M]. Bath, UK.: The Bath Press.
Dahl,.2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological perspective[A]. In.Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter,3-25.
Davidson, D.1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences[A]. In N. Rescher(ed.), The Logic ofDecision and Action[C]. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press,81-95.
Declerck, R.1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Declerck, R.2006. The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, Volume1: The Grammar of the EnglishTense System[M]. Berlin/London: Mouton de Gruyter.
Depraetere, I.2007.(A)telic ity and intentionality[J]. Linguistics45:243-269.
Dickey, S. M.2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect[M]. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Dik, S. C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part1: The Structure of the Clause,2ndedition[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W.1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dixon, R. M. W.1979. Ergativity[J]. Language55:59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W.1994. Ergativity[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.
D lling, J.2003. Aspectual (Re-)Interpretation: Structural Representation and Processing[A]. In H.H rtl&H. Tappe(eds.), Mediating between Concepts and Grammar[C]. Berlin, New York:Mouton de Gruyter,303-322.
D lling, J.2011. Aspectual Coercion and Eventuality Structure[A]. To appear in K. Robering&V.Engerer(eds.), Verbal Semantics[C].http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~doelling/pdf/aspectual_coercion.pdf.
Donohue, M.1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowing, A.&P. Locke.2002. A University Course in English Grammar [M]. London: Routledge.
Dowty, D.1977. Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfectiveprogressive[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy1:45-77.
Dowty, D. R.1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel PublishingCompany.
Dryer, M. S.1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations[J]. Language68:81-138.
Dryer, M. S.2009. The branching direction theory revisited[A]. In S. Scalise, E. Magni&A.Bisetto(eds.), Universals of Language Today[C]. Berlin: Springer,185-207.
Egg, M.2005. Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena[M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Enc, M.1987. Anchoring conditions for tense[J]. Linguistic Inquiry18:633-657.
Ernst, T.2004. The Syntax of Adjuncts[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V.&M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[M]. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.
Filip, H.1994. Aspect and the semantics of noun phrases[A]. In Vet, C.&C. Vetters(eds.), Tense andAspect in Discourse[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,227-256.
Filip, H.1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference[M]. New York: Routledge, Taylorand Francis Group.
Firestone, H. L.1965. Description and classification of Sirionó[M]. London: Mouton.
Fleischman, S.1982. The future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleischman, S.1982. The past and the future: Are they coming or going?[A]. In M. Macaulay etal.(eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C].Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society,322-334.
Fleischman, S.1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor[J]. Studies in Language13:1-50.
Forsyth, J.1970. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guajardo, G.2010. The Syntax of Temporal Interpretation in Embedded Clauses[D]. Missoula, MT:The University of Montana.
Haegeman, L.1989. Be going to and will: a pragmatic account[J]. Journal of Linguistics25:291-317.
Haider, H.2000. Adverb placement: convergence of structure and licensing[J]. Theoretical Linguistics26:95-134.
Hale, K.1970. The Passive and Ergative in Language Change: The Australian case[A]. In S. A. Wurmand D. Laycock(eds.), Pacific linguistic studies in honor of Arthur Capell[C]. Canberra: ANU,757-781.
Haspelmath, M.1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages[M].München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Haspelmath, M.2006. Universals of word order[OL].http://email.eva.mpg.de/-haspelmt/6.WordOrder.pdf (accessed on15/12/2011).
Heim, I.1982. The Semantics of Definites and Indefinites[D]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Hengeveld, K.1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar[J]. Journal of Linguistics25:127-157.
Hengeveld, K.2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect[A]. In H. Narrog and B. Heine(eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,580-594.
Hewson, J.&V. Bubenik.1997. Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology,Diachrony[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hewson, J.2012. Tense[A]. In R. I. Binnick(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect[C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,507-535.
Higginbotham, J.2006. The anaphoric theory of tense[A]. In M. Gibson&J. Howell(eds.),Prodeedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory16[C]. CLC Publications, Cornell University,Ithaca, NY,59-76.
Higginbotham, J.2009. Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinrichs, E.1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in English[D].Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hopper, P. J.1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse[A]. In T. Givón(ed.), Discourse and Syntax,Vol.12[C]. New York: Academic Press,213-241.
Hopper, P. J.1982. Aspect between Discourse and Grammar: An Introductory Essay for theVolume[A]. In P. J. Hopper(ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics&Pragmatics[C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,3-18.
Hornstein, N.1981. The Study of meaning in natural language: Three approaches to tense[A]. In N.Hornstein and D. Lightfoot(eds.), Explanation in Linguistics[C]. London: Longman,116-151.
Hornstein, N.1993. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar[M]. The MIT Press: CambridgeMA.
Hu, J., H. Pan, and L. Xu.2001. Is there a finite-nonfinite distinction in Chinese[J]. Linguistics39:1117-1148.
Huang, C. T.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar[D]. Cambridge, MA:MIT.
Huddleston, R.1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Hymes, D.1975. From space to time in Kiksht[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics41:313-329.
Jackendoff, R. S.1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, J. T.1977. Yapese Reference Grammar[M]. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Johnson, M.1981. A unified temporal theory of tense and aspect[A]. In P. J. Tedeschi&A.Zeanen(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.14[C]. New York: Academic Press,145-171.
Joos, M.1964. The English Verb: form and meaning[M]. Madison: The University of WisconsinPress.
Kalmar, I.1977. The Antipassive in Inuktitut[J]. Etudes Inuit1:129-142.
Kibort, A.2009. Modelling the perfect, acategory between tense and aspect[A]. In Current Issues inUnity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the papers selected from the CIL18th[C]. Seoul:The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Kiparsky, P.1968. Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax[J]. Foundations of Language4:30-57.
Klein, W.1994. Time in Language[M]. London/New York: Routledge.
Kratzer, A.1989. An investigation into the lumps of thought[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy12:607-653.
Kratzer, A.1991. The representation of focus[A]. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich(eds.),Semantik/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research[C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,825-834.
Kr mer, M. and Wunderlich, D.1999. Transitivity alternations in Yucatec and the correlation betweenaspect and argument roles[J]. Linguistics37:431-479.
Krifka, M.1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in EventSemantics[A]. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas(eds.), Semantics andContextual Expression[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publication,75-115.
Krifka, M.1992. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and TemporalConstitution[A]. In I. A. Sag&A. Szabolsci(eds.), Lexical Matters[C]. Stanford: CSLI,29-53.
Kruisinga, E. A.1931. A Handbook of Present-day English,5th edition[M]. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Kuno, S.1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language[M]. Mass: The MIT Press.
Landman, F.2000. Events and Plurality: the Jerusalem Lectures[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landman, F.&S. Rothstein.2010. Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectualfor-phrases[A]. In M. R. Hovav, E. Doron, and I. Sichel(eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, andEvent Structure[C]. New York: Oxford University Press,229-251.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2000. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2002. Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar,2ndedition[M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Larson, R. K.1988. On the Double Object Construction[J]. Linguistic Inquiry19:335-391.
Lecarme, J.1999. Nominal tense and tense theory[A]. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin and J. M.Marandin(eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics2[C]. The Hague: Thesus,333-354.
Leinonen, M.1982. Russian aspect,“temporal’naja lokalizacija”, and definiteness/indefiniteness[D].Helsinki.
Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson.1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar[M].Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lin, J. W.2000. On the Temporal Meaning of the Verbal-le in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics1:109-133.
Lin, J.W.2003. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics12:254-311.
Lindenlaub, J.2006. How to talk about the future: A study of future time reference with particularfocus on the Hoc k language[D]. Erfurt: University of Erfurt.
Lojenga, K. C.1993. The writing and reading of tone in Bantu languages[J]. Notes on Literacy19:1-19.
Lyons, J.1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maienborn, C.2010. Event Semantics[A]. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner(eds.),Semantics: An international Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol.1[C]. Berlin, New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mani, I., J. Pustejovsky&R. Gaizauskas.2005. The language of time: a reader[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Matthews, G. H.1965. Hidatsa Syntax[M]. The Hague: Mouton.
Matthews, P. H.1997. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics[Z]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
McConnell-Ginet, S.1982. Adverbs and Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic Theory[J].Language58:144-184.
McGilvray, J. A.1991. Tense, Reference, and Worldmaking[M]. Montreal&Kingston:McGill-Queen s University Press.
Michaelis, L. A.1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-time Reference[M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Michaelis, L.A.2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectualcoercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics15:1-67.
Moens, M.1987. Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference[D]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Noonan, M.1992. A grammar of Lango[M]. Berlin: Muton de Gruyter.
Noonan, M.2007. Complementation[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology and SyntacticDescription, Vol.2: Complex Constructions[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,52-150.
Nordlinger, R. and L. Sadler.2004. Nominal Tense in Crosslinguistic Perspective[J]. Language80:776-806.
Nurse, D.2008. Tense and Aspect in Bantu[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olsen, M. B.1994. A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect[D]. Evanston,Illinois: Northwestern University.
Owens, J.1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia)[M]. Hamburg: Buske.
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb[M]. London: Longman Group Limited.
Pan, Haihua.1993. Interaction between adverbial quantification and perfective aspect[A]. In L. S.Stvan(ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-AmericaConference, Northwestern University. Bloomington. Indiana University Linguistics ClubPublications,188-204.
Parsons, T.1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Partee, B. H., A. G. B. ter Meulen&R. E. Wall.1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics[M].Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L. and M. J. Traxler.2006. Underspecification andAspectual Coercion[J]. Discourse Processes42:131-155.
Pi ango, M. M., Winnick, R., Ullah, A. and E. Zurif.2006. Time-course of Semantic Composition:The Case of Aspectual Coercion[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research35:233-244.
Primus, B.2011. Case-Marking Typology[A]. In J. J. Song(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,303-321.
Pulman, S.1997. Aspectual Shift as Type Coercion[J]. Transactions of the Philological Society95:279-317.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Pylkk nen, L.2008. Mismatching Meanings in Brain and Behavior[J]. Language and LinguisticsCompass2:712-738.
Rappaport Hovav, M.&B. Levin.1998. Building verb meanings[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(eds.),The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: Center for theStudy of Language and Information,97-134.
Reh, M.1996. Anywa Language: Description and Internal Reconstructions[M]. K ln: RüdigerK ppe.
Reichenbach, H.1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic[M]. New York: Macmillan Co.
Rothstein, S.2004. Structuring Events[M]. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
Sabel, J.2002. Endemic Tense-Agreement Effects in Malagasy. Paper presented at the AustronesianFormal Linguistics Association9, Cornell University.
Schieberl, M. L.1998. An Explanation for Ergative versus Accusative Languages: An Examination ofInuktitut[D]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Silverstein, M.1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity[A]. In R. M. W. Dixon(ed.), GrammaticalCategories in Australian Languages[C]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,112-171.
Smith, C. S.1991. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, C. S.2005. Time with and without tense[P]. The International Round Table on Tense andModality, Paris.
Sneddon, J. N.1996. Indonesian: a Comprehensive Grammar[M]. London: Routledge.
Soga, M.1983. Tense and Aspect in Modern Colloquial Japanese[M]. Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia Press.
Spreng, B.2010. On the Conditions for Antipassives[J]. Language and Linguistics Compass4:556-575.
Spreng, B.2012. Viewpoint Aspect in Inuktitut: The Syntax and Semantics of Antipassives[D]. Toronto:University of Toronto.
de Swart, H.1993. Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach[M]. New York&London: Garland Publishing, INC.
de Swart, H.1998. Aspect shift and coercion[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16:347-385.
de Swart, H.&Verkuyl, H.1999. Tense and Aspect in Sentence and Discourse[M]. Utrecht,Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Thelin, N. B.(ed.)1990. Verbal aspect in discourse: contributions to the semantics of time andtemporal perspective in slavic and non-slavic languages[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Thompson, E.2005. Time in Natural Language: Syntactic Interfaces with Semantics andDiscourse[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Timberlake, A.2007. Tense, aspect and mood[A]. In T. Shopen(ed.), Language Typology andSyntactic Description, Vol.3: Grammatical Categories and the lexicon[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,280-333.
Trask, R. L.1999. Language: The Basics,2nd edition[M]. London: Routledge.
Travis, L.1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP, paper presented at NELS22. McGill University,Toronto, Canada.
Underhill, R.1976. Turkish Grammar[M]. Mass: The MIT Press.
Van Valin Jr., R. D.2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vendler, Z.1967. Verbs and times[A]. In Z. Vendler(ed.), Linguistics in philosophy[C]. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,199-220.
Verkuyl, H. J.1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects[D]. Dordrecht, Holland: D. ReidelPublishing Co.
Verkuyl, H. J.1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and AtemporalStructure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J.2008. Binary Tense[M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Vet, C.&C. Vetters(eds.).1994. Tense and Aspect in Discourse[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vet, C.2007. The descriptive inadequacy of Reichenbach s tense system: a new proposal[J]. CahiersChronos17:7-26.
Wallace, S.1982. Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories[A]. In P. J.Hopper(ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics&Pragmatics[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,201-223.
Watkins, L. J.1984. A Grammar of Kiowa[M]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Whiteley, W. H.&M. G. Muli.1962. Practical Introduction to Kamba[M]. Nairobi and London:Oxford University Press.
Yule, G.2004. Explaining English Grammar[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zandvoort, R. W.1962. Is aspect an English verbal category[A]. In F. Behre(ed.), Contributions toEnglish Syntax and Phonology[A]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell,1-20.
Ziegeler, D.2007. Arguing the case against coercion[A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. K pcke, T. Berg, and P.Siemund(eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,99-124.
陈立民,2002,汉语的时态和时态成分[J]。语言研究(3):14-31。
陈前瑞,2005,句尾“了”将来时间用法的发展[J]。语言教学与研究(1):66-73。
陈前瑞,2008,汉语体貌研究的类型学视野[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
陈前瑞、王继红,2012,从完成体到最近将来时——类型学的罕见现象与汉语的常见现象[J]。世界汉语教学(2):158-173。
陈平,1988,论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构[J]。中国语文(6):401-421。
陈望道,1978,文法简论[M]。上海:上海教育出版社。
崔雅丽,2011,构式压制对语言异质现象的阐释[J]。外国语文(3):59-62。
戴维.克里斯特尔编,沈家煊译,2000,现代语言学词典[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
戴耀晶,1997,现代汉语时体系统研究[M]。杭州:浙江教育出版社。
董成如、杨才元,2009,构式对词项压制的探索[J]。外语学刊(5):42-46。
董成如,2011,汉语存现句中动词非宾格性的压制解释[J]。现代外语(1):19-26。
房玉清,1992,动态助词“了”“着”“过”的语义特征及其用法比较[J]。汉语学习(1):14-20。
冯成林,1981,试论汉语时间名词和时间副词的划分标准——从“刚才”和“刚”“刚刚”的词性谈起[J]。陕西师范大学学报(3):90-95。
高名凯,1986,汉语语法论[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
龚千炎,1991,谈现代汉语的时制表示和时态表达系统[J]。中国语文(4):251-261。
龚千炎,1995,汉语的时相时制时态[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
顾阳,2008,时态、时制理论与汉语时间参照研究[A]。沈阳,冯胜利(编),载当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C]。北京:商务印书馆,97-119。
郭锐,1993,汉语动词的过程结构[J]。中国语文(6):410-419。
郭锐,1997,过程和非过程——汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型[J]。中国语文(3):162-175。
胡建华、石定栩,2006,量化副词与动态助词“了”和“过”[A]。中国语文杂志社(编),载语法研究和探索(十三)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,185-195。
胡建华,2007,否定、焦点与辖域[J]。中国语文(2):99-111。
黄洁,2009,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(1):9-13。
蒋严、潘海华,2005,形式语义学引论[M]。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
金理新,2005,上古汉语形态研究[M]。合肥:黄山书社。
金立鑫,1998,试论“了”的时体特征[J]。语言教学与研究(1):105-119。
金立鑫,2002,词尾“了”的时体意义及其句法条件[J]。世界汉语教学(1):34-43。
金立鑫,2003,“S了”的时体意义及其句法条件[J]。语言教学与研究(2):38-48。
金立鑫,2004,汉语时体表现的特点及其研究方法[A]。竟成(编),载汉语时体系统国际研讨会论文集[C]。上海:百家出版社,54-66。
金立鑫,2008a,对Reichenbach时体理论的一点补充[J]。中国语文(5):433-440。
金立鑫,2008b,试论行为类型、情状类型及其与体的关系[J]。语言教学与研究(4):1-9。
金立鑫,2009,“时”“体”范畴的本质特征及其蕴含共性[A]。程工、刘丹青(编),载汉语的形式与功能研究[C]。北京:商务印书馆,322-345。
金立鑫、邵菁,2010, Charles N. Li等“论汉语完成体标记词‘了’的语用驱动因素”中某些观点商榷[J]。当代语言学(4):319-325。
金立鑫,2011,什么是语言类型学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
金立鑫、于秀金,2012,左右分枝结构配置的功能分析[J]。外语教学与研究(4):496-509。
竟成,1993,关于动态助词“了”的语法意义[J]。语文研究(1):52-57。
李临定,1990,现代汉语动词[M]。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
李明晶,2013,现代汉语体貌系统的二元分析：动貌和视点体[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李仕春、艾红娟,2008,山东莒县方言动词的合音变调[J]。语言科学(4):394-397。
李铁根,1999,现代汉语时制研究[M]。沈阳:辽宁大学出版社。
李铁根,2002,“了”、“着”、“过”与汉语时制的表达[J]。语言研究(3):1-13。
李莹、徐杰,2010,形式句法框架下的现代汉语体标记研究[J]。现代外语(4):355-362。
李勇忠,2004,语义压制的转喻理据[J]。外语教学与研究(6):433-437。
李志岭,2010,汉英语时间标记系统语法化对比研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
黎锦熙,1992,新著国语文法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
刘丹青,2001,论元分裂式话题结构初探[A]。范开泰(编)，载语言问题再认识：庆祝张斌先生从教五十周年暨八十华诞[C]。上海：上海教育出版社，146-147。
刘公望,1988,现代汉语的时体助词“的”[J]。汉语学习(4):20-24。
刘勋宁,1988,现代汉语词尾“了”的语法意义[J]。中国语文(5):321-330。
刘勋宁,1990,现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其与词尾“了”的联系[J]。世界汉语教学(2):80-87。
刘勋宁,2002,现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说[J]。世界汉语教学(3):70-79。
刘一之,2001,北京话中的“着(.zhe)”字新探[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
刘宇红、谢亚军,2007,从构式语法看汉语成语的仿用[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(6):10-13。
刘月华,1988,动态助词“过2过1了1”用法比较[J]。语文研究(1):6-16。
陆丙甫,1998,从语义、语用看语法形式的实质[J]。中国语文(5):353-367。
陆俭明,1999,“着”字补议[J]。中国语文(5):331-336。
陆俭明、沈阳,2003,汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1982,中国文法要略[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘主编,1984,现代汉语八百词[Z]。北京:商务印书馆。
马希文,1983,关于动词“了”的弱化形式/.lou/[J]。中国语言学报(1):1-14。
聂建军、尚秀妍,1998,说“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(2):50-52。
彭家法,2009,附加语句法语义研究[M]。合肥：安徽大学出版社。
秦洪武、王克非,2010,论元实现的词汇化解释:英汉语中的位移动词[J]。当代语言学(2):115-125。
秦洪武,2011,英汉语中的类型强制：事件语义视角[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
尚新,2007,英汉体范畴对比研究——语法体的内部对立与中立化[M]。上海:上海人民出版社。
沈家煊,2006a,“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J]。中国语文(4):291-300。
沈家煊,2006b,“糅合”和“截搭”[J]。世界汉语教学(4):5-12。
沈家煊,2012,怎样对比才有说服力以英汉名动对比为例[J]。现代外语(1):1-13。
石毓智,1992,论现代汉语的“体”范畴[J]。中国社会科学(6):183-201。
宋玉柱,1981,关于时间副词“的”和“来着”[J]。中国语文(4):271-276。
宋作艳,2010,类词缀与事件强迫[J]。世界汉语教学(4):446-458。
宋作艳,2011,轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫[J]。中国语文(3):205-217。
孙英杰,2006,现代汉语体系统研究[D]。北京：北京语言大学博士学位论文。
陶寰,1995,论吴语的时间标记[D]。上海:复旦大学博士学位论文。
王还,1998,也说“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(5):5。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
王维贤,1991,“了”字补议[A]。中国语文杂志社(编),载语法研究和探索(五)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,197-214。
王寅,2009,汉语“副名构造”的认知构造语法分析法——基于“压制、突显、传承、整合”的角度[J]。外国语文(4):1-8。
王寅,2011,“新被字构式”的词汇压制解释——对“被自愿”一类新表达的认知构式语法研究[J]。外国语(3):13-20。
王媛,2011,现代汉语动结式的进行体[J]。语言科学(1):70-82。
吴安其,1997,汉藏语使动和完成体前缀的残存与同源的动词词根[J]。民族语文(6):21-32。
吴安其,2002,汉藏语同源研究[M]。北京:中央民族大学出版社。
吴道平,2012,为何形式主义？[J]。外国语(5):2-14。
吴福祥,2005,汉语体标记“了、着”为什么不能强制性使用[J]。当代语言学(3):237-250。
谢成名,2009,从语义范畴的角度看“刚”和“刚才”的区别[J]。世界汉语教学(1):38-48。
谢应光,2007,构式语法与英语体义研究[J]。四川外语学院学报(1):96-101。
邢福义、丁力、汪国胜、张邱林,1990,时间词“刚刚”的多角度考察[J]。中国语文(1):15-23。
熊仲儒,2004,生成句法学中的时制[J]。外语学刊(1):73-78。
熊仲儒,2005,时制、时体与完成式[J]。外国语言文学(4):223-229。
徐烈炯,1988,语法学[A],中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),载中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京：中国大百科全书出版社,467-475。
徐烈炯、刘丹青,2007,话题的结构与功能(增订本)[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
徐通锵,1997,语言论——语义型语言的结构原理和研究方法[M]。长春:东北师范大学出版社。
杨伯峻,1981,古汉语虚词[M]。北京:中华书局。
杨国文,2011,“动词+结果补语”和“动词重叠式”的非时态性质[J]。当代语言学(3):217-225。
易仲良,1987,论英语动词过去时态的实质[J]。外国语(1):16-19.
袁野,2011a,论语篇构式语法及语篇构式压制[J]。外国语(5):38-45。
袁野,2011b,试论汉语的体压制[J]。世界汉语教学(3):334-345。
张斌、胡裕树,1988,汉语语法[A],中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),载中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京:中国大百科全书出版社,177-183。
张济卿,1998a,论现代汉语的时制与体结构（上）[J]。语文研究(3):17-25。
张济卿,1998b,论现代汉语的时制与体结构（下）[J]。语文研究(4):18-26。
张家骅,2004,现代俄语体学[M]。北京:高等教育出版社。
张黎,2003,“界变”论——关于现代汉语“了”及其相关现象[J]。汉语学习(1):17-21。
赵国栋,2008,动词体整合研究[M]。北京:科学出版社。
赵勇,2011,现在完成体构式“时/体”义的再思考[J]。云南农业大学学报(2):112-116。
中国大百科全书总编辑委员会语言文字编辑委员会,中国大百科全书出版社编辑部(编),1988,中国大百科全书·语言文字[Z]。北京:中国大百科全书出版社。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编,现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z]。北京:商务印书馆。
周晓冰,1993,充当状语的“刚”和“刚才”[J]。汉语学习(1):16-19。
周小兵,1996,篇章·语义·句法汉语语法综合研究[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
邹崇理,2000,自然语言逻辑研究[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
左思民,1997,现代汉语体的再认识[D]。上海:上海师范大学博士学位论文。
左思民,1998,试论“体”的本质属性[J]。汉语学习(4):7-11。
左思民,1999,现代汉语中“体”的研究[J]。语文研究(1):9-20。
左思民,2006,普通话动词的“动相”结构与体标记的焦点选择,第十四次现代汉语语法学术讨论会论文。
左思民,2009,动词的动相分类[J]。华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(1):74-82。