构式视角下的汉英习语变异研究
|
摘要
习语是民族语言的精华,也是客观外界和民族文化的概念化表现,其形成经历了长期的历史积累和沉淀。各民族中都有大量的习语存在。它们形式多样、结构凝练、数目众多、表达力丰富,非其它语言表达式可替代。许多国内外学者都已将研究目光投向习语这种特殊的意义组合体,并在多种方向取得了显著的成果,比如从修辞学、文体学、语义学等方面的研究。这些研究都为我们提供了宝贵的借鉴价值。
然而,随着科技的发展和社会的进步,新概念、新事物以及新的社会现象等都在不断地涌现和更替,随之而来的是不断出现的新的语言表达。互联网技术的普及和发展以及网络文化的流行,更促使着这些新的语言表达正在并且还将以我们难以想象的速度传播与发展。在这一过程中,习语作为语言表达的一个重要组成部分,也被人们赋予了许多新的用法,形成了诸多的变体。这些习语的变体如同习语本身一般形态多样,且意义丰富,具有研究价值。时至今日,已有很多学者将研究目光投向这种新奇独特的非常规语言使用,比如从语言学、认知、文学、修辞学以及社会学等视角对其进行考察等等。然而总的来说,对于汉英习语变异的研究还有许多发展和进步的空间。我们认为目前习语变异研究中发展不足之处主要有以下几点：1)在习语变异的研究中,对现象描写多阐释少；2)术语混淆不统一；3)共时研究占主导,历时研究明显不足,静态事实描写多于动态演变描述；4)对比研究明显不够,尤其是在认知理论指导下的汉英或英汉习语变异对比研究。
本研究中,我们认为汉英习语变异新创意义的产出和理解并非某种单一认知机制可以解释,而是需要多种认知方式的协调与整合运作。我们以认知语言学的前沿理论—构式语法理论为指导,以新兴语言使用环境中汉英习语变异的真实语料为研究对象,结合归纳与演绎、定性与定量的研究方法,探讨这一新的语言事实背后的普遍认知运作机制和过程,对汉英习语变异现象作出较为全面的描写以及较为合理的解释。本研究的主要结论在于以下几点：
第一、对汉英习语变异现象中的相关术语的定义进行了界定和统一,并对汉英习语变异现象进行了较为全面地分类、描写和归纳,并对其语言特征进行了描述和对比阐释。
第二、汉英习语变异现象反映了社会的演变以及语言发展的内在规律,既具有相对稳定性又具有相对灵活性。该现象中汉英语言的相似特点反映了两种语言中发展的相似趋同性,不同特点则反映了两种语言演变过程中的相对特殊性,同时还反映了两个民族中人们认知特点、认知方式的独特性。汉英习语变异的对比研究有助于对两种语言发展的内在规律进行深入探讨。
第三、基于对前人研究成果的借鉴,对汉英习语变异表达背后的生成机制和识解机制进行了探讨。本研究中首次提出汉英语习语变异现象皆是复杂的语言表达的事实。该事实需要结合多种认知机制的整合运作进行合理解释。我们在理论上的主要发现有：
1)习语变异现象是人们在对习语原型构式进行去习语化和去范畴化认知操作的基础上对其进行再范畴化和再次语义整合的多次认知过程。在这一认知过程中,汉英习语变异现象存在显著的共性。习语变体构式的意义理解形成了一种认知的连续统。这一连续统并不是界限分明的,而是边界模糊的。汉英习语变异新创意义的产出和理解是语言事实背后认知主体所具备的各种认知能力多次复合加工与整合运作的结果。
2)汉英习语变异现象中原型构式与变体构式之间存在各种不同的压制模式。构式的压制构成习语变异的生成机制之一。我们扩大了构式语法理论中压制的定义范围,并对构式压制词汇的原则进行了补充,增加了词汇压制、语音压制、时体压制以及多重压制等,并且通过分析具体汉语语料验证了这几种压制在汉英习语变异过程中的运作及其解释力。
3)汉英习语变异的第二个生成机制是构式的识解。我们结合具体语料对五种维度的识解方式在该现象中的运作进行了较为合理的解释说明,并且指出,每一个习语变体中的变异成分都对应着具体的语境和语用信息,因此习语变异现象是一种语境依赖性和语用性都较强的语言事实。
4)习语变异的第三个生成机制是构式的整合。我们在Fauconnier等学者提出的四空间概念整合模型图基础之上,增加了认知主体所采用的识解方式,提出了新的习语构式变异的压制识解整合立体模型图。新立体模型图的优点主要有两点,其一在于能够较清晰地体现构式整合过程的动态性特征,其二在于能够清楚地表现这一过程中不同认知加工方式的运作,从而能够更清楚地体现不同习语变异类型或不同语言习语变异的同质性和异质性特征。
5)汉英习语变异中变体构式的五种理据,即隐喻、转喻、象似性、范畴化以及类比,构成了习语变异的识解机制。该识解机制为我们解释了习语变异现象中变体缘何而来的问题,并且为如何理解变体新意义提供了认知阐释。
第四、通过对习语变异现象的探讨和研究,我们可对语言发展与变异趋势及其影响进行一定程度的判断。语言的发展和变化时刻都在发生。随着科技与网络更快更新地发展以及新兴事物和社会现象的不断涌现,习语变异现象也会随之发展和继续,其不规范的程度或许会更甚于现在。
本研究在吸收和借鉴前人研究的基础上,主要有以下几点创新之处：1)首次对汉英习语变异这一语言现象进行较全面的、系统的整理、归纳和分析,并建立了汉英习语变体封闭语料库；2)首次在构式语法理论的指导下对汉英习语变异现象进行对比研究；3)首次建立针对汉英习语变异过程的多维度动态认知整合运作网络模型,并在其中创造性地增加了生成机制和识解机制的框架表征,既能表现变异过程中构式整合的动态性以及认知复杂性等特点,又能体现不同习语变异类型以及不同语言之间习语变异的共性和个性；4)首次提出汉英习语变异现象并非单一方式或机制的认知过程,而是需要借助认知主体所具有的多种认知能力复合加工运作的复杂认知过程。
Idioms, an important part of language, are the result of human cognition characteristic of conceptualization and representation of the objective world and national culture. The formation of idioms is a long-term process. It is universally acknowledged that there are large numbers of idioms in different languages. These special expressions are rhythmic in pronunciation, brief in semantic representation, humorous and metaphorical in nature. They commonly share the features of structural unity and semantic idiomaticity. Because of all these specialties of idioms, many scholars abroad have already given much attention to the research and investigation of these idiosyncratic expressions. Notable achievements have been acquired in many fields, such as stylistic studies, rhetorical studies and also semantic studies. These studies offer precious reference to the current study.
However, with the development of society, science and technology, and also the increasing of the contact and merging of different nations and cultures, language itself is, and will be undertaking constant modification, variation and evolution. Based on specific pragmatic demands, idioms see different variations created by language users. These idiomatic variants are as valuable as their prototypes. Many scholars paid attention to the study of these variants from different perspectives, such as linguistic, cognitive, literature, rhetorical and sociological, etc. Nevertheless, there are still problems as follows:1) there is more description of phenomenon than explanation;2) the use of terminology is not unified;3) there is more diachronic study than synchronic study, as well as more static description than dynamic description;4) contrastive studies are lacking, especially from the perspective of cognitive theories.
In this study, we believed that the output and understanding of the emergent meaning could not be explained by single cognitive mechanism, but by the integration of multiple cognitive abilities. From the Constructional perspective, taking the real data of Chinese and English idiom variants as the research subject, combining the approach of induction and deduction, qualitative and quantitative, we discussed the universal backstage cognitive mechanisms and working progress of this language phenomenon, described and explained its linguistic features. The main findings are as follows:
Firstly, relevant terms are defined and unified, and the phenomenon of idiom variation and its linguistic features are described and classified. Meanwhile, contrastive study is carried out basing on the summary of general and individual features.
Secondly, the phenomenon of idiom variation actually reflects the evolution of society as well as the internal rules of language development, which requires both the relative stability and relative flexibility. Similar features between Chinese and English data reflect the convergence in the development of these two languages, while different features reflect the divergence. The study of similarities and differences may help us explore the internal rules of development or evolution of Chinese and English.
Thirdly, basing on the reference of previous literatures, we explored the backstage cognitive mechanisms of this phenomenon. In this study, we put forward that idiom variation of Chinese and English is a complicated language using fact, which demands the combination and integration of multiple cognitive mechanisms. The main theoretical values are as follows:
1) Idiom variation is the result of repeated cognitive processing, which includes recategorization and semantic re-integration basing on the initial de-idiomaticity and decategorization. In this cognitive process, obvious general features exist in both languages. The understanding of emergent meaning of idiom variants forms a cognitive continuum, which is not clear but vague in boundaries.
2) In the phenomenon of idiom variation, the working modes of coercion and inheritance are various between prototype construction and variant construction. Coercion is the first generating mechanism of idiom variation. The definition of coercion is extended and complimented beyond that in Construction Grammar. Lexical coercion, pronunciation coercion, aspectual coercion and multiple coercion are added, explained and testified by specific data.
3) The second generating mechanism is the construe of construction. In the current study, we put forward that constructions are construable. Basing on specific data, we described and explained the function of five construal abilities in idiom variation phenomenon. We believe that every variated element corresponds with specific context or pragmatic information, which offers reasons for the context-dependency and pragmatic features of this phenomenon.
4) The third generating mechanism is constructional integration. Basing on the two-dimensional four spaces model of conceptual integration established by Fauconnier et al, we introduced corresponding construal abilities and put forward the new three-dimensional cognitive integration model of this phenomenon. There are two main advantages of the new model. The first lies in its capability to represent the dynamic features of constructional integration process, while the other lies in its reflection of different cognitive abilities and hence available to represent homogeneous and heterogeneous features between different categories or between different languages.
5) Beyond three generating mechanism, there exists one construing mechanism of idiom variation, which is the constructional motivations, i.e. metaphor, metonymy, iconicity, categorization and analogy, etc. This construing mechanism provides the way to understand idiom variants and offers corresponding cognitive interpretation.
Fourthly, through the discussion and exploration of idiom variation, it is possible for linguists to make judgments on the tendency of language development and variation as well as its influence. As technology and internet develop even more rapidly, and as new concepts and new social phenomenons occur constantly, the variation of idioms will continue its development, according to language economy, the extent of irregularity may be higher then that of present status.
The originality of the present research lies in the following four aspects:1) it provides the first large-scale empirical study and analysis of idiom variation phenomenon in both Chinese and English, while enclosed corpus of idiom variants is established;2) it is the first constructive study of idiom variation under the guidance of Constructional Grammar;3) it establishes the first three-dimensional dynamic cognitive integration model of idiom variation in both Chinese and English, which can not only represent the dynamic features of conceptual integration and its cognitive complication, but also reflect general and individual features between different categories and different languages;4) it first put forward that the phenomenon of idiom variation in Chinese and English is not simply a single mechanism process, but is a complicated cognitive process which is in need of multiple construe abilities.
然而,随着科技的发展和社会的进步,新概念、新事物以及新的社会现象等都在不断地涌现和更替,随之而来的是不断出现的新的语言表达。互联网技术的普及和发展以及网络文化的流行,更促使着这些新的语言表达正在并且还将以我们难以想象的速度传播与发展。在这一过程中,习语作为语言表达的一个重要组成部分,也被人们赋予了许多新的用法,形成了诸多的变体。这些习语的变体如同习语本身一般形态多样,且意义丰富,具有研究价值。时至今日,已有很多学者将研究目光投向这种新奇独特的非常规语言使用,比如从语言学、认知、文学、修辞学以及社会学等视角对其进行考察等等。然而总的来说,对于汉英习语变异的研究还有许多发展和进步的空间。我们认为目前习语变异研究中发展不足之处主要有以下几点：1)在习语变异的研究中,对现象描写多阐释少；2)术语混淆不统一；3)共时研究占主导,历时研究明显不足,静态事实描写多于动态演变描述；4)对比研究明显不够,尤其是在认知理论指导下的汉英或英汉习语变异对比研究。
本研究中,我们认为汉英习语变异新创意义的产出和理解并非某种单一认知机制可以解释,而是需要多种认知方式的协调与整合运作。我们以认知语言学的前沿理论—构式语法理论为指导,以新兴语言使用环境中汉英习语变异的真实语料为研究对象,结合归纳与演绎、定性与定量的研究方法,探讨这一新的语言事实背后的普遍认知运作机制和过程,对汉英习语变异现象作出较为全面的描写以及较为合理的解释。本研究的主要结论在于以下几点：
第一、对汉英习语变异现象中的相关术语的定义进行了界定和统一,并对汉英习语变异现象进行了较为全面地分类、描写和归纳,并对其语言特征进行了描述和对比阐释。
第二、汉英习语变异现象反映了社会的演变以及语言发展的内在规律,既具有相对稳定性又具有相对灵活性。该现象中汉英语言的相似特点反映了两种语言中发展的相似趋同性,不同特点则反映了两种语言演变过程中的相对特殊性,同时还反映了两个民族中人们认知特点、认知方式的独特性。汉英习语变异的对比研究有助于对两种语言发展的内在规律进行深入探讨。
第三、基于对前人研究成果的借鉴,对汉英习语变异表达背后的生成机制和识解机制进行了探讨。本研究中首次提出汉英语习语变异现象皆是复杂的语言表达的事实。该事实需要结合多种认知机制的整合运作进行合理解释。我们在理论上的主要发现有：
1)习语变异现象是人们在对习语原型构式进行去习语化和去范畴化认知操作的基础上对其进行再范畴化和再次语义整合的多次认知过程。在这一认知过程中,汉英习语变异现象存在显著的共性。习语变体构式的意义理解形成了一种认知的连续统。这一连续统并不是界限分明的,而是边界模糊的。汉英习语变异新创意义的产出和理解是语言事实背后认知主体所具备的各种认知能力多次复合加工与整合运作的结果。
2)汉英习语变异现象中原型构式与变体构式之间存在各种不同的压制模式。构式的压制构成习语变异的生成机制之一。我们扩大了构式语法理论中压制的定义范围,并对构式压制词汇的原则进行了补充,增加了词汇压制、语音压制、时体压制以及多重压制等,并且通过分析具体汉语语料验证了这几种压制在汉英习语变异过程中的运作及其解释力。
3)汉英习语变异的第二个生成机制是构式的识解。我们结合具体语料对五种维度的识解方式在该现象中的运作进行了较为合理的解释说明,并且指出,每一个习语变体中的变异成分都对应着具体的语境和语用信息,因此习语变异现象是一种语境依赖性和语用性都较强的语言事实。
4)习语变异的第三个生成机制是构式的整合。我们在Fauconnier等学者提出的四空间概念整合模型图基础之上,增加了认知主体所采用的识解方式,提出了新的习语构式变异的压制识解整合立体模型图。新立体模型图的优点主要有两点,其一在于能够较清晰地体现构式整合过程的动态性特征,其二在于能够清楚地表现这一过程中不同认知加工方式的运作,从而能够更清楚地体现不同习语变异类型或不同语言习语变异的同质性和异质性特征。
5)汉英习语变异中变体构式的五种理据,即隐喻、转喻、象似性、范畴化以及类比,构成了习语变异的识解机制。该识解机制为我们解释了习语变异现象中变体缘何而来的问题,并且为如何理解变体新意义提供了认知阐释。
第四、通过对习语变异现象的探讨和研究,我们可对语言发展与变异趋势及其影响进行一定程度的判断。语言的发展和变化时刻都在发生。随着科技与网络更快更新地发展以及新兴事物和社会现象的不断涌现,习语变异现象也会随之发展和继续,其不规范的程度或许会更甚于现在。
本研究在吸收和借鉴前人研究的基础上,主要有以下几点创新之处：1)首次对汉英习语变异这一语言现象进行较全面的、系统的整理、归纳和分析,并建立了汉英习语变体封闭语料库；2)首次在构式语法理论的指导下对汉英习语变异现象进行对比研究；3)首次建立针对汉英习语变异过程的多维度动态认知整合运作网络模型,并在其中创造性地增加了生成机制和识解机制的框架表征,既能表现变异过程中构式整合的动态性以及认知复杂性等特点,又能体现不同习语变异类型以及不同语言之间习语变异的共性和个性；4)首次提出汉英习语变异现象并非单一方式或机制的认知过程,而是需要借助认知主体所具有的多种认知能力复合加工运作的复杂认知过程。
Idioms, an important part of language, are the result of human cognition characteristic of conceptualization and representation of the objective world and national culture. The formation of idioms is a long-term process. It is universally acknowledged that there are large numbers of idioms in different languages. These special expressions are rhythmic in pronunciation, brief in semantic representation, humorous and metaphorical in nature. They commonly share the features of structural unity and semantic idiomaticity. Because of all these specialties of idioms, many scholars abroad have already given much attention to the research and investigation of these idiosyncratic expressions. Notable achievements have been acquired in many fields, such as stylistic studies, rhetorical studies and also semantic studies. These studies offer precious reference to the current study.
However, with the development of society, science and technology, and also the increasing of the contact and merging of different nations and cultures, language itself is, and will be undertaking constant modification, variation and evolution. Based on specific pragmatic demands, idioms see different variations created by language users. These idiomatic variants are as valuable as their prototypes. Many scholars paid attention to the study of these variants from different perspectives, such as linguistic, cognitive, literature, rhetorical and sociological, etc. Nevertheless, there are still problems as follows:1) there is more description of phenomenon than explanation;2) the use of terminology is not unified;3) there is more diachronic study than synchronic study, as well as more static description than dynamic description;4) contrastive studies are lacking, especially from the perspective of cognitive theories.
In this study, we believed that the output and understanding of the emergent meaning could not be explained by single cognitive mechanism, but by the integration of multiple cognitive abilities. From the Constructional perspective, taking the real data of Chinese and English idiom variants as the research subject, combining the approach of induction and deduction, qualitative and quantitative, we discussed the universal backstage cognitive mechanisms and working progress of this language phenomenon, described and explained its linguistic features. The main findings are as follows:
Firstly, relevant terms are defined and unified, and the phenomenon of idiom variation and its linguistic features are described and classified. Meanwhile, contrastive study is carried out basing on the summary of general and individual features.
Secondly, the phenomenon of idiom variation actually reflects the evolution of society as well as the internal rules of language development, which requires both the relative stability and relative flexibility. Similar features between Chinese and English data reflect the convergence in the development of these two languages, while different features reflect the divergence. The study of similarities and differences may help us explore the internal rules of development or evolution of Chinese and English.
Thirdly, basing on the reference of previous literatures, we explored the backstage cognitive mechanisms of this phenomenon. In this study, we put forward that idiom variation of Chinese and English is a complicated language using fact, which demands the combination and integration of multiple cognitive mechanisms. The main theoretical values are as follows:
1) Idiom variation is the result of repeated cognitive processing, which includes recategorization and semantic re-integration basing on the initial de-idiomaticity and decategorization. In this cognitive process, obvious general features exist in both languages. The understanding of emergent meaning of idiom variants forms a cognitive continuum, which is not clear but vague in boundaries.
2) In the phenomenon of idiom variation, the working modes of coercion and inheritance are various between prototype construction and variant construction. Coercion is the first generating mechanism of idiom variation. The definition of coercion is extended and complimented beyond that in Construction Grammar. Lexical coercion, pronunciation coercion, aspectual coercion and multiple coercion are added, explained and testified by specific data.
3) The second generating mechanism is the construe of construction. In the current study, we put forward that constructions are construable. Basing on specific data, we described and explained the function of five construal abilities in idiom variation phenomenon. We believe that every variated element corresponds with specific context or pragmatic information, which offers reasons for the context-dependency and pragmatic features of this phenomenon.
4) The third generating mechanism is constructional integration. Basing on the two-dimensional four spaces model of conceptual integration established by Fauconnier et al, we introduced corresponding construal abilities and put forward the new three-dimensional cognitive integration model of this phenomenon. There are two main advantages of the new model. The first lies in its capability to represent the dynamic features of constructional integration process, while the other lies in its reflection of different cognitive abilities and hence available to represent homogeneous and heterogeneous features between different categories or between different languages.
5) Beyond three generating mechanism, there exists one construing mechanism of idiom variation, which is the constructional motivations, i.e. metaphor, metonymy, iconicity, categorization and analogy, etc. This construing mechanism provides the way to understand idiom variants and offers corresponding cognitive interpretation.
Fourthly, through the discussion and exploration of idiom variation, it is possible for linguists to make judgments on the tendency of language development and variation as well as its influence. As technology and internet develop even more rapidly, and as new concepts and new social phenomenons occur constantly, the variation of idioms will continue its development, according to language economy, the extent of irregularity may be higher then that of present status.
The originality of the present research lies in the following four aspects:1) it provides the first large-scale empirical study and analysis of idiom variation phenomenon in both Chinese and English, while enclosed corpus of idiom variants is established;2) it is the first constructive study of idiom variation under the guidance of Constructional Grammar;3) it establishes the first three-dimensional dynamic cognitive integration model of idiom variation in both Chinese and English, which can not only represent the dynamic features of conceptual integration and its cognitive complication, but also reflect general and individual features between different categories and different languages;4) it first put forward that the phenomenon of idiom variation in Chinese and English is not simply a single mechanism process, but is a complicated cognitive process which is in need of multiple construe abilities.
引文
A. P. Cowie & R. Mackin.1985. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English Verbs with Prepositions & Particles[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Williams, B.1996. The Status of Corpora as Linguistic Data[A]. G. Knowles et al. Working with Speech[C]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Bergs, Alexander. & Gabriele Diewald.2008. Constructions and Language Change (Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs 194)[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Berlin, B.& P. Kay.1969. Basic Color Terms:Their Universiality and Evolution[M], Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloomfield, L.1933/1967. Language [M]. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Bolinger, D.1980. Language and Social Knowledge[M]. London:Longman.
Cignoni, L. et al.1999. Idiom variation in Italian and English:Two corpus-based studies [J]. Languages in Contrast. Vol.2
Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. & Oakly, T.2000. Blending Basics[J].Cognitive Linguistics.11-3/4:175-196.
Croft, William.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relation[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
De Swart, Henriette.1998. Aspect Shift and Coercion[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.
Dirven, R. & M. Verspoor.2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd revised) [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dirven, R.2005. Major strands in cognitive linguistics[A]. In F.J.Ruiz de Mendoza & M.S.Pena Cervel(eds.). Cognitive linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Principles of Conceptual Integration[A]. J.-P.Koenig(Ed). Discourse and Cognition[C].pp.269-283.Stanford:CSLI.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Conceptual Integration Network[A]. Cognitive Linguistics. 22(2):133-187.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1996. Blending as Central Process of Grammar[A]. In Goldberg, A. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Standford:Center for Study of Language and Information.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Minds s Hidden Complexities[M]. New York:Basic Books.
Gibbs, R.W.1994. The Poetics Of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W.2000. Making good psychology out of blending theory[J]. Cognitive Linguistics. 11:347-358.
Fernando, C.1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fernando, C. & R. Flavell.1981. On Idiom:Critical Views and Perspectives(Exeter Linguistic Studies, 5)[M]. Exeter:University of Exeter Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1985b. Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction[A]. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C],73-86. University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay.1987.The Goals of Construction Grammar[J]. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report No.50. University of California at Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J.1988. The Mechanisms of "Construction Grammar". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, C., P. Kay & M. O'Connor.1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Conditions: The Case of LET ALONE [J]. Language.64(3):501-538.
Fonagy, Ivan.1999. Why Iconicity.In N Nanny Max & Olga Fischer (eds.). From Mining Meaning-Iconicity in Language and Literature[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fraser, B.1970. Idioms within a Transformational Grammar[J]. Foundations of Language.6:22-42.
Fried, Mirjam & H.C. Boas.2005. Constructional Approaches to Language. Vol.4:Grammatical Constructions:Back to the Roots[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Glaser, R.1998. The Stylistic Potential of Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre Analysis[A].In A.P.Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology:Theory, Analysis, and Applications[C].pp:125-143. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldberg, A.1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A.2006. Constructions at work [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E.1996. Making One's Way Through the Data[A]. In Shibatani, M. & S. A. Thompson(eds.). Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[C]. pp:29-53.OUP.
Goldberg, A. E.2003. Constructions:A New Theoretical Approach to Language.外国语(3).
Goldberg, A. E. & Ray Jackendoff.2004. The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions[J]. Language.3 (80):532-568.
Hopper, Paul & S.A. Thompson.1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language.
Jackendoff, R. S.1997a. Twistin' the Night Away [J]. Language.73(3):534-559.
Johnson-Laird, P.N.1983Mental Models[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D.1995. Varieites of Counterfactual Thinking[A]. Roese, N.J. & J.M.Olson. What Might Have Been:the Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking[C]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C.1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations:the What's X doing Y? Construction[J]. Language.75(1):1-33.
Kasper Boye, Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Language Usage and Language Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lakoff & Johnson.1980. Metaphors we live by [M]. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G 1987..Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1990. The Invariance Principle:Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schema?[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.1:39-74.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. 2005. Ten Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics by George Lakoff.高远、李福印主编.北京航空航天大学外国语言系语言学系列讲座.
Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1, Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1, Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991a/2002. Concept, Image and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W.1993.Reference-Point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.4:1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W.1997. The Contextual Basis of Cognitive Semantics[A]. In J. Nuyts & E. Pedersen(Eds.). Language and Conceptualization[C].pp:229-252. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.2000. Why a mind is necessary?[A]. In Albefrazzi, L.(ed.). Meaning and Cognition[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W.2003. Construction Grammars:Cognitive, Radical and Less So[Z]. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University de La Rioja.
Langacker, Ronald W.2007. Ten lectures on cognitive grammar by Ronald Langacker.高远,李福印主编.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.2010. How not to disagree:The emergence of structure from usage[A]. In Boye, Kasper & Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (eds.). Language Usage and Language Structure: Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs[C]. pp:107-144. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langlotz, Andreas.2006. Idiomatic Creativity:A Cognitive-linguistic Model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English[M].Amsterdam-Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Leech, G. 1981. Semantics:The Study of Meaning[M].(2nd ed). Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Makkai, A.1972. Idiom Structure in English[M]. The Hague:Mouton.
Makkai, A., Gates, J.E., and Boatner, M(eds.).1995. A Dictionary of American Idioms[M].New York: Barron's Educational Serries, Inc.
McMordie.1954. English Idioms and How to Use Them(3rd edition)[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L.A.2003b. Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning[A]. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Rene Dirven, and John Taylor(eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics[C]. CLR23. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L.A.2004. Type Shifting in Construction Grammar:An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.15(1).
Michaelis, L. A.2005. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A]. In Ostman, Jan-Ola & M. Fried (Eds.). Constructional Approaches to Language:Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extension[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. A.2006. Construction Grammar [A]. In Brown, Keith(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second Edition, Volume 3[Z]. Oxford:Elsevier.
Michaelis, L. A.2010. Sign-Based Construction Grammar[A]. In T. Hoffman and G Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar[C].pp:7-50. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Moon, R.1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English:A Corpus Approach[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Philip, G 2000. An idiomatic theme and variations[J]. English Language Research Monographs,Vol.18."Words in Context:A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement."
Philip, G 2006. Reassessing the Canon:"fixed" phrases in general reference corpora[A]. Phraseology:an interdisciplinary perspective [Z]. S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds.)
Rasulic, Katarina.2010. Long Time, No Buzz:Fixed Expressions as Constructional Frames [J]. Cognitextes, Vol.5.
Saussure, E. De.1916. Course in General Linguistics[M].(?)北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.高名凯译,1996,《普通语言学教程》,北京：商务印书馆.
Seale, J.1979. Metaphor[A].In A.Ortony(ed.). Metaphor and Thought[C].pp:92-123. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shibatani, M. & S. Thompson.1996. Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[M]. OUP.
Svartvik, J. & Quirk R.1980. A Corpus of English Conversation[C]. Lund:Lund University Press.
Talmy, L.1978. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition--a Synopsis[A]. In Waltz, David(ed.). Proceedings of TINLAP-2[C]. New York:Association for Computing Machinery.
Taylor, John R.1989. Linguistic Categorization--Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.1996. Possessives in English:An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.2002a. Category extension by metonymy and metaphor[A]. In Rene Dirven and Ralf Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C].pp:323-347. Berlin/ New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, John R.2004a. The Ecology of Constructions[A]. In Gunter & Klause-Uwe Panther(eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research 28)[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, John R.2007. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics by John Taylor.高远、李福印主编.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Ungerer, F. & H.J.Schmid.2001. An introduction to cognitive linguistics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Williams, B.1996. The Status of Corpora as Linguistic Data[A]. G. Knowles et al.Working with Speech [C]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Wierzbicka, Anna.1987. Boys will be Boys:"Radical Semantics" vs. "Radical Pragmatics"[J]. Language.63.
Zwicky, Arnold M.1986. WH Constructions in English[M]. Ohio State University WPL 32.
爱德华.萨丕尔.2007.语言论[M].陆卓元译.北京：商务印书馆.
布龙菲尔德.1997.语言论[M].袁家骅、赵世开等译.北京：商务印书馆.
常晨光.2004.英语习语与人际意义[M].广州：中山大学出版社.
陈柏松.1986.英语习语概论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
陈满华.2008.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
陈庆汉.2007.广告辞中成语活用现象研究[J].新闻界(2).
陈松岑.1999.语言变异研究[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
陈文伯.1982.英语成语与汉语成语[M].北京：外语研究与教学出版社.
陈文伯.2004.译艺——英汉汉英双向笔译[M].北京：世界知识出版社.
陈文伯.2005.英汉成语对比与翻译[M].北京：世界知识出版社.
陈忠.2006.认知语言学研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社.
程坪.1996.实用广告英语教程[M].北京：红旗出版社.
戴浩一.1985.时间顺序与汉语的语序[J].国外语言学.1988(1).
董艳萍、梁君英.2002.走近构式语法[J].现代外语(2).
冯广艺.1991.变异修辞学略论[J].云梦学刊(社会科学版)(1).
冯广艺.1992.变异修辞学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
冯广艺.2004(修订本).变异修辞学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
符淮青.1985.现代汉语词汇[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
衡孝军.1990.英语成语研究述略[J].外语教学与研究(2).
胡兴华.1993.浅谈成语的仿用[J].修辞学习(4).
胡裕树.2004.现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
华先发.1998.英语习语的临时变体[J].外语教学与研究(3).
黄伯荣、廖序东.2002.现代汉语[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
江蓝生.2008.概念叠加与构式整合——肯定否定不对称的解释[J].中国语文(6).
蒋磊.2000.英语习语的文化关照与对比[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
黎剑光.2000.慎用望X兴叹[J].汉语学习(6).
李弘.2005.语音隐喻初探[J].四川外语学院学报(3).
李宇明.1999.词语模.邢福义主编.汉语法特点面面观[M].pp：146-157.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
李玉平.2008.英语习语及其文化源流[M]南京：南开大学出版社.
梁君英.2007.构式语法的新发展：语言的概括特征—Goldberg<工作中的构式>[J].外语教学与研究(1).
刘叔新.2005.汉语描写词汇学(重排本)[M].北京：商务印书馆.
刘宇红.2006.认知语言学：理论与应用[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
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).
刘正光.2004.名词非范畴化的特征[J].语言教学与研究(3).
刘正光.2005.语言非范畴化的工作机制[J].外语研究(1).
刘正光、刘润清.2005.语言非范畴化理论的意义[J].外语教学与研究(1).
刘正光.2006.语言非范畴化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
刘正光.2011.构式语法研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
陆俭明.2002.再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J].中国语文(4).
陆俭明.2004.词语句法、语义的多功能性：对“构式语法”理论的解释[J].外国语(2).
陆俭明.2008.构式语法理论的价值与局限[J].南京师范大学文学院学报(1).
陆俭明.2009.构式与意象图式[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(3).
陆俭明、沈阳.2003.汉语和汉语研究十五讲.北京：北京大学出版社.
卢植.2006.认知与语言[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
骆世平.2005.英语习语研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
宁建新、陈观亚.1997.实用广告英语[M].郑州：河南人民出版社.
牛保义.2007.凸显度优先：TALL-SHORT类相对反义词的认知研究[J].外语学刊(2).
牛保义.2011.构式语法理论研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
马玉蕾、房红梅.2005.类比和隐喻[J].外语学刊(5).
么孝颖.2008.仿拟话语的认识语用研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社.
潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
彭建武.2005.认知语言学研究tM].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社.
彭庆华.2007.英语习语研究—语用学视角[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
平洪、张国扬.2000.英语习语与英美文化[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
钱冠连.2001.有理据的范畴化过程——语言理论研究中的原创性[J].外语与外语研究(10).
任庆梅.2007.构式习得认知心理机制诠释综述研究[J].外国语(6).
沈家煊.2004.句法的象似性问题[A].束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[C].pp：103-116.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
沈家煊.2006.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学(4).
沈志和.2010.仿拟成语中的语音隐喻——一项基于封闭语料的研究[J].柳州师专学报(2).
沈志和.2011.汉语仿拟成语的“突显-压制”阐释——一项基于封闭语料的研究[J].柳州师专学报(3).
石毓智.2000.语法的认知语义基础pM].江西：江西教育出版社.
石毓智.2007.结构与意义的匹配类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报(8).
束定芳.2008.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳.2000.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳.2011.隐喻与转喻研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
苏晓军、张爱玲.2001.概念整合理论的认知力[J].外国语(3).
孙维张.1989.汉语熟语学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社.
唐雪凝、许浩.2010.现代汉语常用成语的语义认知研究[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
王德春、杨素英、黄月圆.2003.汉英谚语与文化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王勤.2006.汉语熟语论[M].山东：山东教育出版社.
汪榕培.1999.英语词汇学探胜[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培.2002.英语词汇学高级教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、李东.1983.实用英语词汇学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社.
汪榕培、王之江.2008.英语词汇学(修订版)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、杨彬.2011.高级英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王文斌.英语词汇语义学[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社.
王寅.2003a.体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J].哲学动态(7).
王寅.2003b.原型范畴理论与英汉构词对比[J].四川外语学院学报(5).
王寅.2004.认知语言学之我见[J].解放军外国语学院学报(5).
王寅.2005.认知语言学探索[M].重庆：重庆出版社.
王寅.2006.认知语法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2007.“创新”是语言学研究真正的增长点[J].外语学刊(1).
王寅.2007.中西语义理论对比研究初探：基于体验哲学和认知语言学的思考[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
王寅.2007a.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2007c.汉语“动名构造”与英语“VN构造”的对比——一项基于语料库“吃/eat构造”的对比研究[J].外语教学(2).
王寅.2007d.“As X As Y构造”的认知研究——十论语言的体验性[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).
王寅.2009.构式压制、词汇压制和惯性压制[J].外语与外语教学(12).
王寅.2011.构式语法研究：上下卷[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2011.什么是认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王颖.2007.英语习语整合处理法[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
王正元.2009.概念整合理论及其应用研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
威廉.冯.洪堡特.1836.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平(译).2010.北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.1996.古今俗语集成(1-6卷)[Z].太原：山西教育出版社.
温端政.2005.汉语语汇学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
武占坤、王勤.1983.现代汉语词汇概要[M].内蒙古：内蒙古人民出版社.
武占坤.2007.汉语熟语通论[M].河北：河北大学出版社.
吴国华.2000.语言的社会性与语言变异[J].外语学刊(4).
吴克明、胡志伟.1999.英语广告词精品[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
邢福义.1996.关于成语换字活用[J].语文建设(1).
熊俊.2011.汉语仿拟翻译研究：社会符号学视角[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
徐大明.2006.语言变异与变化[C].上海：上海教育出版社.
徐国珍.2003.仿拟研究[M].南昌：江西人民出版社.
徐宜良.2005.英语词汇变异及其文体功能[J].继续教育研究(5).
许国璋.1997.论语言和语言学[C].北京：商务印书馆.
许余龙.1992.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
杨自俭、李瑞华.1990.英汉对比研究述评[A].杨自俭、李瑞华.英汉对比研究论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
严辰松.2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).
严辰松.2008.从“年方八十”说起再谈构式[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
闫文培.2010.现代汉英俗俚语对比研究[M].北京：科学出版社.
叶蜚声、徐通锵.1981.语言学纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
叶国泉、罗康宁.1992.语言变异艺术[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
郁福敏、郭珊琏.1999.英汉习语对比[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社.
于根元.2004.在语言学的道路上——于根元自选集[C].北京：北京广播学院出版社.
于连顺.2010.汉语习语英译中的结构与文化探究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学出版社.
袁晖.2000.二十世纪的汉语修辞学[M].太原：书海出版社.
袁晖、宗廷虎.2002.汉语修辞学史(修订本)[M].太原：山西人民出版社.
袁野.2010.构式语法、语言压制现象及转喻修辞[J].当代修辞学(3).
袁野.2011.论语篇构式语法及语篇构式压制[J].外国语(5).
赵明.2003.语际翻译与文化交融：汉英互译的理论与实践[M].徐州：中国矿业大学出版社.
张培基.1980.论英语习语的变体[J].外国语(3).
张辉.2003.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京：军事谊文出版社.
张韧.2007.认知语法视野下的构式研究[J].外语研究(3).
张世禄.1930.语言学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆.
张维友.2004.英语词汇学教程[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社.
张维友.2010.英汉语词汇对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
张艳君、毛延生.2009.语言变异的语用顺应论研究[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社.
张昭政.2003.成语仿拟说例[J].语文天地(13).
张镇华等.2007.英语习语的文化内涵及其语用研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
周荐.2004.汉语词汇结构论[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.
周荐、杨世铁.2006.汉语词汇研究百年史[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
朱军.2010.汉语构式语法研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
Collins Cobuild.1995. Dictionary of Idioms. R.E.Moon (ed.). London:Harper Colins.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.1987.Berlin:Langenscheidt, Longman.
Crystal, D.1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Makkai, A., Gates, J.E., and Boatner, M(eds.).1995. A Dictionary of American Idioms[M].New York: Barron's Educational Serries, Inc.
胡志勇.2010.汉英成语词典[Z].上海：上海交通大学出版社.
克劳瑟等.2004.牛津英语搭配词典[Z].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
朗文当代高级英语词典.2009(第四版).英国培生教育出版亚洲有限公司,外语教学与研究出版社.
理查德.2007.美国英语习语与动词短语大词典[Z]靖华大学出版社.
李魁彩、孙晓明.2011.汉语歇后语词典[Z].北京：华语教学出版社.
李行健.2010.现代汉语成语规范词典(4版)[Z].北京：华语教学出版社.
刘振铎.2002.歇后语词典：上下[Z].长春：北方妇女儿童出版社.
刘振铎.2002.谚语词典：上下[Z].长春：北方妇女儿童出版社.
牛津英语习语词典(英汉双解版).2005(2011重印版).牛津大学出版社,外语教学与研究出版社.
秦秀白.1999.当代英语习语大词典[Z].天津：天津科学技术出版社.
商务印书馆辞书研究中心.2002.新华成语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
特朗博、史蒂文森(英).2004(第五版).牛津英语大词典(简编本).上海外语教育出版社.
温端政.2005.新华谚语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.2008.新华歇后语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.2008.常用歇后语词典：辞海版[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
温端政.2009.现代汉语歇后语词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
温端政.2009.现代汉语谚语词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
武占坤、马国凡.1991.汉语熟语大辞典[z].河北：河北教育出版社.
辛克莱尔(英).2000.柯林斯COBUILD英语辞典.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
曾东京.2009.新英语谚语词典[Z].上海：上海大学出版社.
英国国家语料库(BNC)
美国当代英语语料库(COCA)
北京大学语料库(CCL)
华中师范大学语言与语言教育研究中心语料库
Williams, B.1996. The Status of Corpora as Linguistic Data[A]. G. Knowles et al. Working with Speech[C]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Bergs, Alexander. & Gabriele Diewald.2008. Constructions and Language Change (Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs 194)[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Berlin, B.& P. Kay.1969. Basic Color Terms:Their Universiality and Evolution[M], Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloomfield, L.1933/1967. Language [M]. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Bolinger, D.1980. Language and Social Knowledge[M]. London:Longman.
Cignoni, L. et al.1999. Idiom variation in Italian and English:Two corpus-based studies [J]. Languages in Contrast. Vol.2
Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. & Oakly, T.2000. Blending Basics[J].Cognitive Linguistics.11-3/4:175-196.
Croft, William.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relation[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
De Swart, Henriette.1998. Aspect Shift and Coercion[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.
Dirven, R. & M. Verspoor.2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd revised) [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dirven, R.2005. Major strands in cognitive linguistics[A]. In F.J.Ruiz de Mendoza & M.S.Pena Cervel(eds.). Cognitive linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Principles of Conceptual Integration[A]. J.-P.Koenig(Ed). Discourse and Cognition[C].pp.269-283.Stanford:CSLI.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Conceptual Integration Network[A]. Cognitive Linguistics. 22(2):133-187.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1996. Blending as Central Process of Grammar[A]. In Goldberg, A. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Standford:Center for Study of Language and Information.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Minds s Hidden Complexities[M]. New York:Basic Books.
Gibbs, R.W.1994. The Poetics Of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W.2000. Making good psychology out of blending theory[J]. Cognitive Linguistics. 11:347-358.
Fernando, C.1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fernando, C. & R. Flavell.1981. On Idiom:Critical Views and Perspectives(Exeter Linguistic Studies, 5)[M]. Exeter:University of Exeter Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1985b. Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction[A]. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C],73-86. University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay.1987.The Goals of Construction Grammar[J]. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report No.50. University of California at Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J.1988. The Mechanisms of "Construction Grammar". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, C., P. Kay & M. O'Connor.1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Conditions: The Case of LET ALONE [J]. Language.64(3):501-538.
Fonagy, Ivan.1999. Why Iconicity.In N Nanny Max & Olga Fischer (eds.). From Mining Meaning-Iconicity in Language and Literature[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fraser, B.1970. Idioms within a Transformational Grammar[J]. Foundations of Language.6:22-42.
Fried, Mirjam & H.C. Boas.2005. Constructional Approaches to Language. Vol.4:Grammatical Constructions:Back to the Roots[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Glaser, R.1998. The Stylistic Potential of Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre Analysis[A].In A.P.Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology:Theory, Analysis, and Applications[C].pp:125-143. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldberg, A.1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A.2006. Constructions at work [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E.1996. Making One's Way Through the Data[A]. In Shibatani, M. & S. A. Thompson(eds.). Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[C]. pp:29-53.OUP.
Goldberg, A. E.2003. Constructions:A New Theoretical Approach to Language.外国语(3).
Goldberg, A. E. & Ray Jackendoff.2004. The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions[J]. Language.3 (80):532-568.
Hopper, Paul & S.A. Thompson.1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language.
Jackendoff, R. S.1997a. Twistin' the Night Away [J]. Language.73(3):534-559.
Johnson-Laird, P.N.1983Mental Models[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D.1995. Varieites of Counterfactual Thinking[A]. Roese, N.J. & J.M.Olson. What Might Have Been:the Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking[C]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C.1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations:the What's X doing Y? Construction[J]. Language.75(1):1-33.
Kasper Boye, Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Language Usage and Language Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lakoff & Johnson.1980. Metaphors we live by [M]. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G 1987..Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1990. The Invariance Principle:Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schema?[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.1:39-74.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. 2005. Ten Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics by George Lakoff.高远、李福印主编.北京航空航天大学外国语言系语言学系列讲座.
Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1, Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1, Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991a/2002. Concept, Image and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W.1993.Reference-Point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.4:1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W.1997. The Contextual Basis of Cognitive Semantics[A]. In J. Nuyts & E. Pedersen(Eds.). Language and Conceptualization[C].pp:229-252. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.2000. Why a mind is necessary?[A]. In Albefrazzi, L.(ed.). Meaning and Cognition[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W.2003. Construction Grammars:Cognitive, Radical and Less So[Z]. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University de La Rioja.
Langacker, Ronald W.2007. Ten lectures on cognitive grammar by Ronald Langacker.高远,李福印主编.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.2010. How not to disagree:The emergence of structure from usage[A]. In Boye, Kasper & Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (eds.). Language Usage and Language Structure: Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs[C]. pp:107-144. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langlotz, Andreas.2006. Idiomatic Creativity:A Cognitive-linguistic Model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English[M].Amsterdam-Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Leech, G. 1981. Semantics:The Study of Meaning[M].(2nd ed). Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Makkai, A.1972. Idiom Structure in English[M]. The Hague:Mouton.
Makkai, A., Gates, J.E., and Boatner, M(eds.).1995. A Dictionary of American Idioms[M].New York: Barron's Educational Serries, Inc.
McMordie.1954. English Idioms and How to Use Them(3rd edition)[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L.A.2003b. Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning[A]. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Rene Dirven, and John Taylor(eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics[C]. CLR23. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L.A.2004. Type Shifting in Construction Grammar:An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.15(1).
Michaelis, L. A.2005. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A]. In Ostman, Jan-Ola & M. Fried (Eds.). Constructional Approaches to Language:Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extension[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. A.2006. Construction Grammar [A]. In Brown, Keith(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second Edition, Volume 3[Z]. Oxford:Elsevier.
Michaelis, L. A.2010. Sign-Based Construction Grammar[A]. In T. Hoffman and G Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar[C].pp:7-50. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Moon, R.1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English:A Corpus Approach[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Philip, G 2000. An idiomatic theme and variations[J]. English Language Research Monographs,Vol.18."Words in Context:A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement."
Philip, G 2006. Reassessing the Canon:"fixed" phrases in general reference corpora[A]. Phraseology:an interdisciplinary perspective [Z]. S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds.)
Rasulic, Katarina.2010. Long Time, No Buzz:Fixed Expressions as Constructional Frames [J]. Cognitextes, Vol.5.
Saussure, E. De.1916. Course in General Linguistics[M].(?)北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.高名凯译,1996,《普通语言学教程》,北京：商务印书馆.
Seale, J.1979. Metaphor[A].In A.Ortony(ed.). Metaphor and Thought[C].pp:92-123. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shibatani, M. & S. Thompson.1996. Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[M]. OUP.
Svartvik, J. & Quirk R.1980. A Corpus of English Conversation[C]. Lund:Lund University Press.
Talmy, L.1978. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition--a Synopsis[A]. In Waltz, David(ed.). Proceedings of TINLAP-2[C]. New York:Association for Computing Machinery.
Taylor, John R.1989. Linguistic Categorization--Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.1996. Possessives in English:An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.2002a. Category extension by metonymy and metaphor[A]. In Rene Dirven and Ralf Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C].pp:323-347. Berlin/ New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, John R.2004a. The Ecology of Constructions[A]. In Gunter & Klause-Uwe Panther(eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research 28)[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, John R.2007. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics by John Taylor.高远、李福印主编.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Ungerer, F. & H.J.Schmid.2001. An introduction to cognitive linguistics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Williams, B.1996. The Status of Corpora as Linguistic Data[A]. G. Knowles et al.Working with Speech [C]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Wierzbicka, Anna.1987. Boys will be Boys:"Radical Semantics" vs. "Radical Pragmatics"[J]. Language.63.
Zwicky, Arnold M.1986. WH Constructions in English[M]. Ohio State University WPL 32.
爱德华.萨丕尔.2007.语言论[M].陆卓元译.北京：商务印书馆.
布龙菲尔德.1997.语言论[M].袁家骅、赵世开等译.北京：商务印书馆.
常晨光.2004.英语习语与人际意义[M].广州：中山大学出版社.
陈柏松.1986.英语习语概论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
陈满华.2008.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
陈庆汉.2007.广告辞中成语活用现象研究[J].新闻界(2).
陈松岑.1999.语言变异研究[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
陈文伯.1982.英语成语与汉语成语[M].北京：外语研究与教学出版社.
陈文伯.2004.译艺——英汉汉英双向笔译[M].北京：世界知识出版社.
陈文伯.2005.英汉成语对比与翻译[M].北京：世界知识出版社.
陈忠.2006.认知语言学研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社.
程坪.1996.实用广告英语教程[M].北京：红旗出版社.
戴浩一.1985.时间顺序与汉语的语序[J].国外语言学.1988(1).
董艳萍、梁君英.2002.走近构式语法[J].现代外语(2).
冯广艺.1991.变异修辞学略论[J].云梦学刊(社会科学版)(1).
冯广艺.1992.变异修辞学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
冯广艺.2004(修订本).变异修辞学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
符淮青.1985.现代汉语词汇[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
衡孝军.1990.英语成语研究述略[J].外语教学与研究(2).
胡兴华.1993.浅谈成语的仿用[J].修辞学习(4).
胡裕树.2004.现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
华先发.1998.英语习语的临时变体[J].外语教学与研究(3).
黄伯荣、廖序东.2002.现代汉语[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
江蓝生.2008.概念叠加与构式整合——肯定否定不对称的解释[J].中国语文(6).
蒋磊.2000.英语习语的文化关照与对比[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
黎剑光.2000.慎用望X兴叹[J].汉语学习(6).
李弘.2005.语音隐喻初探[J].四川外语学院学报(3).
李宇明.1999.词语模.邢福义主编.汉语法特点面面观[M].pp：146-157.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
李玉平.2008.英语习语及其文化源流[M]南京：南开大学出版社.
梁君英.2007.构式语法的新发展：语言的概括特征—Goldberg<工作中的构式>[J].外语教学与研究(1).
刘叔新.2005.汉语描写词汇学(重排本)[M].北京：商务印书馆.
刘宇红.2006.认知语言学：理论与应用[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
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).
刘正光.2004.名词非范畴化的特征[J].语言教学与研究(3).
刘正光.2005.语言非范畴化的工作机制[J].外语研究(1).
刘正光、刘润清.2005.语言非范畴化理论的意义[J].外语教学与研究(1).
刘正光.2006.语言非范畴化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
刘正光.2011.构式语法研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
陆俭明.2002.再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J].中国语文(4).
陆俭明.2004.词语句法、语义的多功能性：对“构式语法”理论的解释[J].外国语(2).
陆俭明.2008.构式语法理论的价值与局限[J].南京师范大学文学院学报(1).
陆俭明.2009.构式与意象图式[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(3).
陆俭明、沈阳.2003.汉语和汉语研究十五讲.北京：北京大学出版社.
卢植.2006.认知与语言[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
骆世平.2005.英语习语研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
宁建新、陈观亚.1997.实用广告英语[M].郑州：河南人民出版社.
牛保义.2007.凸显度优先：TALL-SHORT类相对反义词的认知研究[J].外语学刊(2).
牛保义.2011.构式语法理论研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
马玉蕾、房红梅.2005.类比和隐喻[J].外语学刊(5).
么孝颖.2008.仿拟话语的认识语用研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社.
潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
彭建武.2005.认知语言学研究tM].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社.
彭庆华.2007.英语习语研究—语用学视角[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
平洪、张国扬.2000.英语习语与英美文化[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
钱冠连.2001.有理据的范畴化过程——语言理论研究中的原创性[J].外语与外语研究(10).
任庆梅.2007.构式习得认知心理机制诠释综述研究[J].外国语(6).
沈家煊.2004.句法的象似性问题[A].束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[C].pp：103-116.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
沈家煊.2006.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学(4).
沈志和.2010.仿拟成语中的语音隐喻——一项基于封闭语料的研究[J].柳州师专学报(2).
沈志和.2011.汉语仿拟成语的“突显-压制”阐释——一项基于封闭语料的研究[J].柳州师专学报(3).
石毓智.2000.语法的认知语义基础pM].江西：江西教育出版社.
石毓智.2007.结构与意义的匹配类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报(8).
束定芳.2008.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳.2000.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳.2011.隐喻与转喻研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
苏晓军、张爱玲.2001.概念整合理论的认知力[J].外国语(3).
孙维张.1989.汉语熟语学[M].长春：吉林教育出版社.
唐雪凝、许浩.2010.现代汉语常用成语的语义认知研究[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
王德春、杨素英、黄月圆.2003.汉英谚语与文化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王勤.2006.汉语熟语论[M].山东：山东教育出版社.
汪榕培.1999.英语词汇学探胜[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培.2002.英语词汇学高级教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、李东.1983.实用英语词汇学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社.
汪榕培、王之江.2008.英语词汇学(修订版)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、杨彬.2011.高级英语词汇学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王文斌.英语词汇语义学[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社.
王寅.2003a.体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J].哲学动态(7).
王寅.2003b.原型范畴理论与英汉构词对比[J].四川外语学院学报(5).
王寅.2004.认知语言学之我见[J].解放军外国语学院学报(5).
王寅.2005.认知语言学探索[M].重庆：重庆出版社.
王寅.2006.认知语法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2007.“创新”是语言学研究真正的增长点[J].外语学刊(1).
王寅.2007.中西语义理论对比研究初探：基于体验哲学和认知语言学的思考[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
王寅.2007a.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2007c.汉语“动名构造”与英语“VN构造”的对比——一项基于语料库“吃/eat构造”的对比研究[J].外语教学(2).
王寅.2007d.“As X As Y构造”的认知研究——十论语言的体验性[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).
王寅.2009.构式压制、词汇压制和惯性压制[J].外语与外语教学(12).
王寅.2011.构式语法研究：上下卷[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2011.什么是认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王颖.2007.英语习语整合处理法[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
王正元.2009.概念整合理论及其应用研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
威廉.冯.洪堡特.1836.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平(译).2010.北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.1996.古今俗语集成(1-6卷)[Z].太原：山西教育出版社.
温端政.2005.汉语语汇学[M].北京：商务印书馆.
武占坤、王勤.1983.现代汉语词汇概要[M].内蒙古：内蒙古人民出版社.
武占坤.2007.汉语熟语通论[M].河北：河北大学出版社.
吴国华.2000.语言的社会性与语言变异[J].外语学刊(4).
吴克明、胡志伟.1999.英语广告词精品[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
邢福义.1996.关于成语换字活用[J].语文建设(1).
熊俊.2011.汉语仿拟翻译研究：社会符号学视角[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
徐大明.2006.语言变异与变化[C].上海：上海教育出版社.
徐国珍.2003.仿拟研究[M].南昌：江西人民出版社.
徐宜良.2005.英语词汇变异及其文体功能[J].继续教育研究(5).
许国璋.1997.论语言和语言学[C].北京：商务印书馆.
许余龙.1992.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
杨自俭、李瑞华.1990.英汉对比研究述评[A].杨自俭、李瑞华.英汉对比研究论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
严辰松.2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).
严辰松.2008.从“年方八十”说起再谈构式[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
闫文培.2010.现代汉英俗俚语对比研究[M].北京：科学出版社.
叶蜚声、徐通锵.1981.语言学纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
叶国泉、罗康宁.1992.语言变异艺术[M].广州：广东教育出版社.
郁福敏、郭珊琏.1999.英汉习语对比[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社.
于根元.2004.在语言学的道路上——于根元自选集[C].北京：北京广播学院出版社.
于连顺.2010.汉语习语英译中的结构与文化探究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学出版社.
袁晖.2000.二十世纪的汉语修辞学[M].太原：书海出版社.
袁晖、宗廷虎.2002.汉语修辞学史(修订本)[M].太原：山西人民出版社.
袁野.2010.构式语法、语言压制现象及转喻修辞[J].当代修辞学(3).
袁野.2011.论语篇构式语法及语篇构式压制[J].外国语(5).
赵明.2003.语际翻译与文化交融：汉英互译的理论与实践[M].徐州：中国矿业大学出版社.
张培基.1980.论英语习语的变体[J].外国语(3).
张辉.2003.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京：军事谊文出版社.
张韧.2007.认知语法视野下的构式研究[J].外语研究(3).
张世禄.1930.语言学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆.
张维友.2004.英语词汇学教程[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社.
张维友.2010.英汉语词汇对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
张艳君、毛延生.2009.语言变异的语用顺应论研究[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社.
张昭政.2003.成语仿拟说例[J].语文天地(13).
张镇华等.2007.英语习语的文化内涵及其语用研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
周荐.2004.汉语词汇结构论[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.
周荐、杨世铁.2006.汉语词汇研究百年史[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
朱军.2010.汉语构式语法研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.
Collins Cobuild.1995. Dictionary of Idioms. R.E.Moon (ed.). London:Harper Colins.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.1987.Berlin:Langenscheidt, Longman.
Crystal, D.1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Makkai, A., Gates, J.E., and Boatner, M(eds.).1995. A Dictionary of American Idioms[M].New York: Barron's Educational Serries, Inc.
胡志勇.2010.汉英成语词典[Z].上海：上海交通大学出版社.
克劳瑟等.2004.牛津英语搭配词典[Z].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
朗文当代高级英语词典.2009(第四版).英国培生教育出版亚洲有限公司,外语教学与研究出版社.
理查德.2007.美国英语习语与动词短语大词典[Z]靖华大学出版社.
李魁彩、孙晓明.2011.汉语歇后语词典[Z].北京：华语教学出版社.
李行健.2010.现代汉语成语规范词典(4版)[Z].北京：华语教学出版社.
刘振铎.2002.歇后语词典：上下[Z].长春：北方妇女儿童出版社.
刘振铎.2002.谚语词典：上下[Z].长春：北方妇女儿童出版社.
牛津英语习语词典(英汉双解版).2005(2011重印版).牛津大学出版社,外语教学与研究出版社.
秦秀白.1999.当代英语习语大词典[Z].天津：天津科学技术出版社.
商务印书馆辞书研究中心.2002.新华成语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
特朗博、史蒂文森(英).2004(第五版).牛津英语大词典(简编本).上海外语教育出版社.
温端政.2005.新华谚语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.2008.新华歇后语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆.
温端政.2008.常用歇后语词典：辞海版[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
温端政.2009.现代汉语歇后语词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
温端政.2009.现代汉语谚语词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
武占坤、马国凡.1991.汉语熟语大辞典[z].河北：河北教育出版社.
辛克莱尔(英).2000.柯林斯COBUILD英语辞典.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
曾东京.2009.新英语谚语词典[Z].上海：上海大学出版社.
英国国家语料库(BNC)
美国当代英语语料库(COCA)
北京大学语料库(CCL)
华中师范大学语言与语言教育研究中心语料库