英语乏词义结构的认知研究
|
摘要
本文以真实语料的考察为基础,以认知语言学理论为指导,来挖掘英语乏词义结构的句法表现、范畴特征,进而分析其语义特征及形成的认知理据,阐释其构式属性,以便对该结构做出一个科学、系统的解释。本文要澄清以下五个问题:
(1)英语乏词义动词的语义特征;
(2)事件名词的语义特征;
(3)英语乏词义结构形成的认知基础和体验基础;
(4)英语乏词义结构的构式义;
(5)英语乏词义结构的构式功能。
英语乏词义结构的研究由来已久,近年来人们对它的研究方兴未艾。本文在综述学者们从各种研究角度对解释乏词义结构所做出的贡献时发现,由于方法和理论本身的局限,在处理英语乏词义结构时,这些研究面临诸多困难。作为一种较新的研究范式,认知语言学在解释乏词义结构方面可能具有较强的解释力。
本文在认知语言学框架内对英语乏词义结构进行系统阐释。认知语言学主张,语言是人们认知的一部分,受人们认识世界方式的限制。如果要实现解释的充分性,就必须研究人们的认知规律。认知语言学不仅对语言现象加以描写,还致力于解释语言现象,旨在揭示语言现象背后的认知规律。认知语言学把人的一般认知能力和认知策略考虑在内,能清楚说明细微的语义区分和句法结构产生的认知机理。据此,我们从人的一般认知能力和认知操作方式入手,对英语乏词义结构的语义特性和认知理据进行诠释。具体地说,本文要解决的问题有四个:
第一,英语乏词义结构产生的认知基础和体验基础是什么?认知主体是如何对该结构进行概念化的?这一问题的实质是要挖掘乏词义结构内蕴的心理现实性,即该结构形成的认知理据问题。
第二,英语乏词义结构的组成要素包括乏词义动词和事件名词。对于这两个要素,我们不可避免地要回答的问题是:乏词义动词跟实义动词的联系和区别何在?它的语义属性和句法属性是什么?事件名词跟普通名词的异同点是什么?它跟原生动词的联系是什么?
第三,英语乏词义结构是否可视为一种构式?如果可以的话,鉴于构式是“形式与意义的配对”,乏词义结构的语义特征是什么?
第四,接下来自然而然要回答的问题是:构式不仅是形式与意义的配对,还是形式与功能的配对,基于此,英语乏词义结构能够发挥什么样的语用功能或话语功能?
就英语乏词义结构的产生基础而言,其认知基础体现在三个层面上。首先,乏词义结构产生的一个推动力是及物原型结构的吸引,这背后是对认知显性度的追求。认知主体会按自己的认知模式去观察客观世界,在自己的经验世界里重组相应的概念图式以进行认知投射,以原型及物结构为基础构建出乏词义结构。不过,乏词义结构发生了非范畴化,呈现低及物性;其次,识解在乏词义结构的形成过程中也扮演了重要角色。乏词义结构与简单动词结构的差异不但涉及外部世界的实际情景,还关涉到认知主体对情景识解的具体方式。关于乏词义结构,有四个识解维度(详略度、突显、心理扫描、物化)可以对其产生的认知基础作出阐释:(1)乏词义结构是实现详略度的一种句法手段,其刻画的情景比简单动词结构更具体、详尽、复杂;(2)原生动词到事件名词的类转导源于在同一基体内进行的不同突显;(3)事件名词是对动作过程的各个成分状态进行总体扫描后所产生的结果,过程成分的各个位置被映射入一个完整画面,在一个更高的概念组织层面上处于突显的地位,整个场景被处理为一个完形;(4)概念物化将时间域中的“动作行为”重新编码为空间域中的“物体”,反映了概念交替。总之,乏词义结构彰显认知主体所强加的特殊识解,昭示了描绘外部情景的一种特定方式;第三,乏词义结构的出现及高频运用符合认知经济性的要求。乏词义结构是适应性演化的产物,其认知经济性反映在四个方面:对原型及物结构的靠拢、信息处理、名词化隐喻以及基于认知图式的类推。乏词义结构成语化背后的推手是原型及物结构的表达经济性,从名词化隐喻的角度审视,事件名词“一身而二任”:既表达过程意义,又充当参与者,因而比一个意义相近的原生动词所表达的信息量要多,同样的认知内容获得了更高的表达效率,实现了认知与表达的双重经济性。因此,乏词义结构虽然表面上违背了人类语言行为的省力原则,但实质上它是为了充分完成交际功能,在语言活动中对力的消耗作出的合乎经济要求选择的产物。
除了认知基础外,英语乏词义结构还具有坚实的体验基础。这主要表现在两个层面上:以体验思维为基础的物体图式和以想象思维为基础的隐喻投射;乏词义结构是在物体图式的支配下,借助于隐喻投射而显现的。
值得注意的是,英语乏词义动词和事件名词都展示了鲜明的语义特征。就乏词义动词而言,其语义特征展现在三方面:语义泛化、助动词化和非范畴化。在由实义动词向乏词义动词演变过程中,乏词义动词所发生的语义变化是有动因的,受制于“使用频率”、“使用环境”和“语用推理”等三个因素;在语法化过程中,乏词义动词和事件名词展示了语块化倾向。就事件名词来说,它主要彰显五个语义特征:非原型性、数量性、有界性、标记性和低实体性。无论是非原型性、动名类转还是有界性,它们都具有坚实的体验基础。另外,实义动词在转变为乏词义动词的过程中,有些句法表现是滞后的。这就出现了如下情况:从语义标准看,乏词义动词大体上可视作半助动词,但从句法标准看,这类动词却还接近于一般动词。我们把乏词义动词体现的重新范畴化概括为:语义先行,句法滞后。
就英语乏词义结构的构式属性来说,该结构集中体现了“[ VDeverbal + NPEventive ]”这一构式图式,其中变量“VDeverbal”基本上是封闭的(主要包括have、take、give、do等动词),而“NPEventive”中的元素具有开放性,该结构的句法属性同语义属性直接与该构式相连。这种图式跟具体使用的乏词义结构形成一种“图式—实例”关系,是存储于人大脑中的语法型式,提供了一种概念框架,有利于说话人组织、安排语言结构,对语言表达进行指导。本论文主要探寻以have类、take类和give类为代表的乏词义结构所表达的构式义。在很大程度上,事件名词能否在一个或多个乏词义结构中出现是由这些名词的语义特征决定的,并且要视该名词的意义是否与构式义一致而定。此外,我们还把乏词义结构界定为成语性构式,属于“熟习的语言片断作熟习的排列”的构式。
至于英语乏词义结构的构式功能,该结构发挥“脚手架”的功能,为“修饰”、“聚焦”、“礼貌”、“界限设置”及“数态调整”等功能的实现提供一个构式框架。首先,从修饰功能看,乏词义结构为事件名词提供一个添加修饰语的潜在位置,从而“济造句之穷”;其次,从聚焦功能看,乏词义结构是说话人意图聚焦于事件成分而采用的句法策略,是具有明显语用动机的明示;第三,从礼貌功能看,乏词义结构将动作行为微量化,作为模糊手段而发挥作用;第四,从界限设置看,原本无界的动词通过类转成为事件名词进入乏词义结构后,乏词义结构对动作过程的界性进行限制,用限定词将事件名词所勾勒的动作行为进行详细限定,从量上对该动作行为进行具体限制,令其具备有界或终结的属性,产生一个内在的终结点,整个结构也就具备了有界义;第五,从数态调整的角度看,乏词义结构是对动作行为的数态加以调整的句法手段,这是由于事件的名词化有利于将动作行为重构为可归类实体的缘故。乏词义结构可在两方面发挥作用:(1)将“动作行为”重新概念化为“物体”以赋予其物理量;(2)对多量动作行为进行单位选取。
可以说,英语乏词义结构已成为了一个约定俗成的套语模型。在表述事件的基础上,乏词义结构增添了很多功能信息,其身份可界定为“带语用因素的成语”。简言之,功能方面的因素是诠释乏词义结构的关键依据,当然,这些因素在乏词义结构发展的历史长河中是逐步积累而成的。
总而言之,本论文主要就以下问题进行考察:从认知角度对英语乏词义结构进行了深入研究。对于乏词义结构的研究来说,这是一次崭新的尝试。本文发现了乏词义结构形成的认知基础和体验基础,对乏词义动词和事件名词的语义特征进行了梳理,还廓清了该结构的构式义和构式功能。可以说,本文丰富了乏词义结构研究的内容。
同时,本研究也存在着某些不足之处,这主要表现在以下两个方面。首先,与英语乏词义结构相对应的大型语料库还没有建立起来。今后的研究应基于更大规模语料的分析,而非基于少量例证的理论探讨。其次,由于认知语言学本身还处于初创与发展阶段,采用认知理论来解释英语乏词义结构会有不够精确和随意之处,如何利用统一的认知原则来解释乏词义结构是一个不可回避的难题。
Based on our observation of actual instances, this dissertation attempts to investigate the English delexical structure within the framework of cognitive linguistics, including its syntactic actions and categorical features, its cognitive motivation and constructional property so as to arrive at a scientific and systematic account. This dissertation is designed to set the following five objectives straight:
(1) the semantic characteristics of the English delexical verb;
(2) the semantic characteristics of the eventive noun;
(3) the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which the English delexical structure is formed;
(4) the constructional meaning of the English delexical structure;
(5) the constructional function of the English delexical structure.
The exploration of the English delexical structure is time-honored and the research on it now is in the ascendant. While reviewing the contributions made by researchers from different perspectives in their interpretation of delexical structures, we find that there exist some difficulties and disadvantages in the previous studies as restricted by the methods and theories they have applied. Cognitive linguistics, as a new paradigm, may provide a more reasonable account of English delexical structures.
This dissertation intends to offer a systematic interpretation of the English delexical structure within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics assumes that language is a part of cognition and it is governed by the ways of people’s views. If we want to present an adequate explanation we have to investigate people’s cognitive laws. Cognitive linguistics does not only try to describe linguistic phenomena, but also attempts to apply itself to theoretical explanation, the purpose of which is to unearth the cognitive laws behind linguistic facts.
Taking our general cognitive abilities and cognitive strategies into consideration, cognitive linguistics can give an explicit account of minute semantic differentiation and cognitive mechanism of syntactic constructions. This research is designed to expound the semantic properties and cognitive motivation of English delexical structures on the basis of these abilities and strategies. More specifically, the fundamental questions to be solved are as follows.
Firstly, what are the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which the English delexical structure is constructed? How is this structure conceptualized? The essence is to unearth the psychological reality of these structures, namely their cognitive motivation.
Secondly, the major constituents of the English delexical structure are composed of the English delexical verb and the eventive noun. As for these two elements, an inevitable question to be handled is: what is the similarity and dissimilarity between delexical verbs and lexical verbs? What are the semantic attributes and syntactic attributes of delexical verbs? A similar but somewhat more involved question lies in the similarity and dissimilarity between the eventive noun and the common noun. Furthermore what is its link with the parent verb?
Thirdly, can the English delexical structure be viewed as a construction? If so what is its semantic traits in light of the definition of construction as a form-meaning pairing?
Fourthly, given that construction is defined not only as a form-meaning pairing but also as a form-function pairing, another question has to be addressed: what pragmatic or discourse function can this structure serve?
With respect to the basis on which the English delexical structure is established, its cognitive basis lies in three aspects. Firstly one crucial drive for the formation of delexical structures is the attraction of the prototypical transitivity structure, behind which exists the pursuit of cognitive salience. In accordance with their own cognitive models, conceptualizers observe the objective physical world and then reorganize the corresponding conceptual schema in their own experiential worlds so as to achieve specified cognitive projection. It is on this ground that the delexical structure is constructed. It must be admitted, however, that semantically this structure is decategorized and reveals low transitivity. Secondly construal also plays a key role. The difference between delexical structures and simple structures relates not only to the objective physical world but also to the specific fashions of conceptualizers’construal. As far as delexical structures are concerned, there are four dimensions (specificity, prominence, mental scanning and reification) which can give a reasonable account of its cognitive basis. More particularly the role of these dimensions can be elaborated as follows: (1) the delexical structure works as a syntactic tool for specificity and can render the scene it describes more specific, detailed and complex; (2) the conversion from the parent verb to the eventive noun originates from shifting prominence within the same base; (3) the eventive noun results from a summary or holistic scanning of the distinctive states of an action process, the different positions of which are projected as a holistic picture and rendered a salient status in a higher conceptual level, in other words, the whole scene is processed as a gestalt; (4) conceptual reification reflects conceptual alternativity by coding activity (in the time domain) as abstract object (in the space domain). In a nutshell, the delexical structure highlights a particular construal imposed by conceptualizers and exhibits a specific way to depict the physical world. Thirdly the emergence and frequent use of the delexical structure conforms to the requirement of cognitive economy. As a product of adaptive evolution, its cognitive economy is embodied in four facets: approach to the prototypical transitivity structure, information processing, metaphor of nominalization and analogy based on cognitive schema. The initiative force for the idiomatization of delexical structures lies in the expressive economy realized by the prototypical transitivity structure. From the perspective of nominalization metaphor, the eventive noun can not only convey process meaning but also serve as a participant, thus making it more informative than a corresponding parent verb; in this way the same cognitive content gains a much higher expressive efficiency and then two-fold economy of cognition and expression is accomplished.
In addition to the cognitive basis, the English delexical structure also witnesses strong embodied basis, which is demonstrated in two sides: object image schema built on embodied thinking and metaphorical projection grounded on imaginative thinking. To put it another way delexical structures emerge by virtue of metaphorical projection under the direction of object image schema.
Notably both the English delexical verb and the eventive noun reveal salient semantic characteristics. As for the delexical verb, its semantic features are demonstrated in three aspects: semantic bleaching, auxiliation and decategorization. In the evolutionary process from the lexical to the delexical verb, the semantic change unfolding in the delexical verb is well motivated and restricted by three elements: usage frequency, usage environment and pragmatic inference. In the grammaticalization process the combination of the delexical verb and the eventive noun shows a vivid chunking trend. On the other hand the eventive noun foregrounds five semantic features: non-prototypicality, quantitativeness, boundedness, markedness and low categoriality. What is more important is that some of these features (namely non-prototypicality, V–to-N conversion and boundedness) are endowed with distinct embodied basis. Moreover in the conversion from the lexical to the delexical verb some syntactic behaviors of the delexical verb lag behind its semantic change, thus resulting in the following phenomenon: the delexical verb can be roughly regarded as a semi-auxiliary according to semantic standard whereas it can be viewed as a general lexical verb according to syntactic standard. In this light the recategorization reflected by the delexical verb can be summarized as“semantic change before syntactic behavior”.
As far as the constructional property of the English delexical structure is concerned, this structure is an epitome of the constructional schema [VDeverbal + NPEventive], where the variable“VDeverbal”is almost close (consisting mainly of such verbs as have, take, give and do) while elements represented by“NPEventive”are open. It should be noted that the syntactic attributes and semantic attributes are linked directly to this construction. Moreover the relation between this schema and the delexical structure in use is one of schema to instance. Deeply entrenched in our mind, this schema can provide a conceptual framework, benefit our organization and arrangement of language structures and assist us in the expression of language structure. This dissertation is mainly devoted to the exploration of the constructional meaning expressed by the typical delexical structures introduced by three delexical verbs: have, take and give. To a great degree whether an eventive noun can occur in one or more delexical structures is subject not only to its meaning but also to its agreement with the constructional meaning of the whole structure. In addition the delexical structure is defined as idiomatized construction and may be viewed as“familiar pieces familiarly arranged”.
When it comes to the constructional function of the English delexical structure, this structure performs a scaffolding role and supplies a constructional framework for the realization of the following functions: modification, focusing, politeness, bounding, and plexity-setting. To begin with this structure, from the perspective of modification, presents a potential position for the addition of modifiers, thus facilitating the creation of troublesome sentences. Secondly on the side of focusing, this structure acts as a syntactic strategy for the speaker to put focus on event and can be perceived as an ostensive with explicit pragmatic motive. Thirdly from the angle of politeness this structure can play the role of minimizing quantity of an activity and takes the role of a fuzziness-displaying device. Fourthly after the unbounded verb’s entrance into the delexical structure by conversion, this structure can impose a boundary on an activity process through a determiner which delimits the quantity of the activity realized by the eventive noun. As a result the activity will acquire an inherent endpoint and become bounded or telic, which also makes the whole delexical structure bounded. Fifthly in light of plexity-setting this structure serves as a syntactic device which can change the plexity of an activity, since the nominalization of an event can recategorize an activity into a classifiable entity. In this regard the delexical structure comes into play in two aspects: assigning of physical quantity by the recategorization of an activity as a‘thing’; excerpting of a unit from a multiplex activity.
Therefore the English delexical structure is becoming a conventionalized formulistic model. In addition to the expression of eventive meaning this structure can also deliver functional messages. It is in this respect that this structure is referred to as an“idiom with pragmatic elements”. In a nutshell functional factors are critical in the explanation of delexical structures. It must be admitted, however, that these factors evolve and develop in the long history of the delexical structure.
In a word the contribution of this dissertation is as follows: it is an in-depth study of the English delexical structure from the angle of cognitive linguistics. This is a brand new research for this structure. This dissertation uncovers the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which this structure is built, elucidates the semantic characteristics of the English delexical verb and the eventive noun and clears up the constructional meaning and constructional function of this structure. It is fair to say that this dissertation enriches the study of the English delexical structure.
At the same time, this dissertation may also have some shortcomings, which are shown in two aspects. First of all a larger corpus consisting of the English delexical structure is badly needed. In contrast with theoretical discussion on the basis of a small sample of instances, future research is supposed to be conducted on a much wider analysis of data. In the second place since cognitive linguistics is not ripe, it is bound to have inaccuracy and arbitrariness in its interpretation of this structure. It is unavoidable as to how to give an accurate account of the English delexical structure by means of a unified general cognitive principle.
(1)英语乏词义动词的语义特征;
(2)事件名词的语义特征;
(3)英语乏词义结构形成的认知基础和体验基础;
(4)英语乏词义结构的构式义;
(5)英语乏词义结构的构式功能。
英语乏词义结构的研究由来已久,近年来人们对它的研究方兴未艾。本文在综述学者们从各种研究角度对解释乏词义结构所做出的贡献时发现,由于方法和理论本身的局限,在处理英语乏词义结构时,这些研究面临诸多困难。作为一种较新的研究范式,认知语言学在解释乏词义结构方面可能具有较强的解释力。
本文在认知语言学框架内对英语乏词义结构进行系统阐释。认知语言学主张,语言是人们认知的一部分,受人们认识世界方式的限制。如果要实现解释的充分性,就必须研究人们的认知规律。认知语言学不仅对语言现象加以描写,还致力于解释语言现象,旨在揭示语言现象背后的认知规律。认知语言学把人的一般认知能力和认知策略考虑在内,能清楚说明细微的语义区分和句法结构产生的认知机理。据此,我们从人的一般认知能力和认知操作方式入手,对英语乏词义结构的语义特性和认知理据进行诠释。具体地说,本文要解决的问题有四个:
第一,英语乏词义结构产生的认知基础和体验基础是什么?认知主体是如何对该结构进行概念化的?这一问题的实质是要挖掘乏词义结构内蕴的心理现实性,即该结构形成的认知理据问题。
第二,英语乏词义结构的组成要素包括乏词义动词和事件名词。对于这两个要素,我们不可避免地要回答的问题是:乏词义动词跟实义动词的联系和区别何在?它的语义属性和句法属性是什么?事件名词跟普通名词的异同点是什么?它跟原生动词的联系是什么?
第三,英语乏词义结构是否可视为一种构式?如果可以的话,鉴于构式是“形式与意义的配对”,乏词义结构的语义特征是什么?
第四,接下来自然而然要回答的问题是:构式不仅是形式与意义的配对,还是形式与功能的配对,基于此,英语乏词义结构能够发挥什么样的语用功能或话语功能?
就英语乏词义结构的产生基础而言,其认知基础体现在三个层面上。首先,乏词义结构产生的一个推动力是及物原型结构的吸引,这背后是对认知显性度的追求。认知主体会按自己的认知模式去观察客观世界,在自己的经验世界里重组相应的概念图式以进行认知投射,以原型及物结构为基础构建出乏词义结构。不过,乏词义结构发生了非范畴化,呈现低及物性;其次,识解在乏词义结构的形成过程中也扮演了重要角色。乏词义结构与简单动词结构的差异不但涉及外部世界的实际情景,还关涉到认知主体对情景识解的具体方式。关于乏词义结构,有四个识解维度(详略度、突显、心理扫描、物化)可以对其产生的认知基础作出阐释:(1)乏词义结构是实现详略度的一种句法手段,其刻画的情景比简单动词结构更具体、详尽、复杂;(2)原生动词到事件名词的类转导源于在同一基体内进行的不同突显;(3)事件名词是对动作过程的各个成分状态进行总体扫描后所产生的结果,过程成分的各个位置被映射入一个完整画面,在一个更高的概念组织层面上处于突显的地位,整个场景被处理为一个完形;(4)概念物化将时间域中的“动作行为”重新编码为空间域中的“物体”,反映了概念交替。总之,乏词义结构彰显认知主体所强加的特殊识解,昭示了描绘外部情景的一种特定方式;第三,乏词义结构的出现及高频运用符合认知经济性的要求。乏词义结构是适应性演化的产物,其认知经济性反映在四个方面:对原型及物结构的靠拢、信息处理、名词化隐喻以及基于认知图式的类推。乏词义结构成语化背后的推手是原型及物结构的表达经济性,从名词化隐喻的角度审视,事件名词“一身而二任”:既表达过程意义,又充当参与者,因而比一个意义相近的原生动词所表达的信息量要多,同样的认知内容获得了更高的表达效率,实现了认知与表达的双重经济性。因此,乏词义结构虽然表面上违背了人类语言行为的省力原则,但实质上它是为了充分完成交际功能,在语言活动中对力的消耗作出的合乎经济要求选择的产物。
除了认知基础外,英语乏词义结构还具有坚实的体验基础。这主要表现在两个层面上:以体验思维为基础的物体图式和以想象思维为基础的隐喻投射;乏词义结构是在物体图式的支配下,借助于隐喻投射而显现的。
值得注意的是,英语乏词义动词和事件名词都展示了鲜明的语义特征。就乏词义动词而言,其语义特征展现在三方面:语义泛化、助动词化和非范畴化。在由实义动词向乏词义动词演变过程中,乏词义动词所发生的语义变化是有动因的,受制于“使用频率”、“使用环境”和“语用推理”等三个因素;在语法化过程中,乏词义动词和事件名词展示了语块化倾向。就事件名词来说,它主要彰显五个语义特征:非原型性、数量性、有界性、标记性和低实体性。无论是非原型性、动名类转还是有界性,它们都具有坚实的体验基础。另外,实义动词在转变为乏词义动词的过程中,有些句法表现是滞后的。这就出现了如下情况:从语义标准看,乏词义动词大体上可视作半助动词,但从句法标准看,这类动词却还接近于一般动词。我们把乏词义动词体现的重新范畴化概括为:语义先行,句法滞后。
就英语乏词义结构的构式属性来说,该结构集中体现了“[ VDeverbal + NPEventive ]”这一构式图式,其中变量“VDeverbal”基本上是封闭的(主要包括have、take、give、do等动词),而“NPEventive”中的元素具有开放性,该结构的句法属性同语义属性直接与该构式相连。这种图式跟具体使用的乏词义结构形成一种“图式—实例”关系,是存储于人大脑中的语法型式,提供了一种概念框架,有利于说话人组织、安排语言结构,对语言表达进行指导。本论文主要探寻以have类、take类和give类为代表的乏词义结构所表达的构式义。在很大程度上,事件名词能否在一个或多个乏词义结构中出现是由这些名词的语义特征决定的,并且要视该名词的意义是否与构式义一致而定。此外,我们还把乏词义结构界定为成语性构式,属于“熟习的语言片断作熟习的排列”的构式。
至于英语乏词义结构的构式功能,该结构发挥“脚手架”的功能,为“修饰”、“聚焦”、“礼貌”、“界限设置”及“数态调整”等功能的实现提供一个构式框架。首先,从修饰功能看,乏词义结构为事件名词提供一个添加修饰语的潜在位置,从而“济造句之穷”;其次,从聚焦功能看,乏词义结构是说话人意图聚焦于事件成分而采用的句法策略,是具有明显语用动机的明示;第三,从礼貌功能看,乏词义结构将动作行为微量化,作为模糊手段而发挥作用;第四,从界限设置看,原本无界的动词通过类转成为事件名词进入乏词义结构后,乏词义结构对动作过程的界性进行限制,用限定词将事件名词所勾勒的动作行为进行详细限定,从量上对该动作行为进行具体限制,令其具备有界或终结的属性,产生一个内在的终结点,整个结构也就具备了有界义;第五,从数态调整的角度看,乏词义结构是对动作行为的数态加以调整的句法手段,这是由于事件的名词化有利于将动作行为重构为可归类实体的缘故。乏词义结构可在两方面发挥作用:(1)将“动作行为”重新概念化为“物体”以赋予其物理量;(2)对多量动作行为进行单位选取。
可以说,英语乏词义结构已成为了一个约定俗成的套语模型。在表述事件的基础上,乏词义结构增添了很多功能信息,其身份可界定为“带语用因素的成语”。简言之,功能方面的因素是诠释乏词义结构的关键依据,当然,这些因素在乏词义结构发展的历史长河中是逐步积累而成的。
总而言之,本论文主要就以下问题进行考察:从认知角度对英语乏词义结构进行了深入研究。对于乏词义结构的研究来说,这是一次崭新的尝试。本文发现了乏词义结构形成的认知基础和体验基础,对乏词义动词和事件名词的语义特征进行了梳理,还廓清了该结构的构式义和构式功能。可以说,本文丰富了乏词义结构研究的内容。
同时,本研究也存在着某些不足之处,这主要表现在以下两个方面。首先,与英语乏词义结构相对应的大型语料库还没有建立起来。今后的研究应基于更大规模语料的分析,而非基于少量例证的理论探讨。其次,由于认知语言学本身还处于初创与发展阶段,采用认知理论来解释英语乏词义结构会有不够精确和随意之处,如何利用统一的认知原则来解释乏词义结构是一个不可回避的难题。
Based on our observation of actual instances, this dissertation attempts to investigate the English delexical structure within the framework of cognitive linguistics, including its syntactic actions and categorical features, its cognitive motivation and constructional property so as to arrive at a scientific and systematic account. This dissertation is designed to set the following five objectives straight:
(1) the semantic characteristics of the English delexical verb;
(2) the semantic characteristics of the eventive noun;
(3) the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which the English delexical structure is formed;
(4) the constructional meaning of the English delexical structure;
(5) the constructional function of the English delexical structure.
The exploration of the English delexical structure is time-honored and the research on it now is in the ascendant. While reviewing the contributions made by researchers from different perspectives in their interpretation of delexical structures, we find that there exist some difficulties and disadvantages in the previous studies as restricted by the methods and theories they have applied. Cognitive linguistics, as a new paradigm, may provide a more reasonable account of English delexical structures.
This dissertation intends to offer a systematic interpretation of the English delexical structure within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics assumes that language is a part of cognition and it is governed by the ways of people’s views. If we want to present an adequate explanation we have to investigate people’s cognitive laws. Cognitive linguistics does not only try to describe linguistic phenomena, but also attempts to apply itself to theoretical explanation, the purpose of which is to unearth the cognitive laws behind linguistic facts.
Taking our general cognitive abilities and cognitive strategies into consideration, cognitive linguistics can give an explicit account of minute semantic differentiation and cognitive mechanism of syntactic constructions. This research is designed to expound the semantic properties and cognitive motivation of English delexical structures on the basis of these abilities and strategies. More specifically, the fundamental questions to be solved are as follows.
Firstly, what are the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which the English delexical structure is constructed? How is this structure conceptualized? The essence is to unearth the psychological reality of these structures, namely their cognitive motivation.
Secondly, the major constituents of the English delexical structure are composed of the English delexical verb and the eventive noun. As for these two elements, an inevitable question to be handled is: what is the similarity and dissimilarity between delexical verbs and lexical verbs? What are the semantic attributes and syntactic attributes of delexical verbs? A similar but somewhat more involved question lies in the similarity and dissimilarity between the eventive noun and the common noun. Furthermore what is its link with the parent verb?
Thirdly, can the English delexical structure be viewed as a construction? If so what is its semantic traits in light of the definition of construction as a form-meaning pairing?
Fourthly, given that construction is defined not only as a form-meaning pairing but also as a form-function pairing, another question has to be addressed: what pragmatic or discourse function can this structure serve?
With respect to the basis on which the English delexical structure is established, its cognitive basis lies in three aspects. Firstly one crucial drive for the formation of delexical structures is the attraction of the prototypical transitivity structure, behind which exists the pursuit of cognitive salience. In accordance with their own cognitive models, conceptualizers observe the objective physical world and then reorganize the corresponding conceptual schema in their own experiential worlds so as to achieve specified cognitive projection. It is on this ground that the delexical structure is constructed. It must be admitted, however, that semantically this structure is decategorized and reveals low transitivity. Secondly construal also plays a key role. The difference between delexical structures and simple structures relates not only to the objective physical world but also to the specific fashions of conceptualizers’construal. As far as delexical structures are concerned, there are four dimensions (specificity, prominence, mental scanning and reification) which can give a reasonable account of its cognitive basis. More particularly the role of these dimensions can be elaborated as follows: (1) the delexical structure works as a syntactic tool for specificity and can render the scene it describes more specific, detailed and complex; (2) the conversion from the parent verb to the eventive noun originates from shifting prominence within the same base; (3) the eventive noun results from a summary or holistic scanning of the distinctive states of an action process, the different positions of which are projected as a holistic picture and rendered a salient status in a higher conceptual level, in other words, the whole scene is processed as a gestalt; (4) conceptual reification reflects conceptual alternativity by coding activity (in the time domain) as abstract object (in the space domain). In a nutshell, the delexical structure highlights a particular construal imposed by conceptualizers and exhibits a specific way to depict the physical world. Thirdly the emergence and frequent use of the delexical structure conforms to the requirement of cognitive economy. As a product of adaptive evolution, its cognitive economy is embodied in four facets: approach to the prototypical transitivity structure, information processing, metaphor of nominalization and analogy based on cognitive schema. The initiative force for the idiomatization of delexical structures lies in the expressive economy realized by the prototypical transitivity structure. From the perspective of nominalization metaphor, the eventive noun can not only convey process meaning but also serve as a participant, thus making it more informative than a corresponding parent verb; in this way the same cognitive content gains a much higher expressive efficiency and then two-fold economy of cognition and expression is accomplished.
In addition to the cognitive basis, the English delexical structure also witnesses strong embodied basis, which is demonstrated in two sides: object image schema built on embodied thinking and metaphorical projection grounded on imaginative thinking. To put it another way delexical structures emerge by virtue of metaphorical projection under the direction of object image schema.
Notably both the English delexical verb and the eventive noun reveal salient semantic characteristics. As for the delexical verb, its semantic features are demonstrated in three aspects: semantic bleaching, auxiliation and decategorization. In the evolutionary process from the lexical to the delexical verb, the semantic change unfolding in the delexical verb is well motivated and restricted by three elements: usage frequency, usage environment and pragmatic inference. In the grammaticalization process the combination of the delexical verb and the eventive noun shows a vivid chunking trend. On the other hand the eventive noun foregrounds five semantic features: non-prototypicality, quantitativeness, boundedness, markedness and low categoriality. What is more important is that some of these features (namely non-prototypicality, V–to-N conversion and boundedness) are endowed with distinct embodied basis. Moreover in the conversion from the lexical to the delexical verb some syntactic behaviors of the delexical verb lag behind its semantic change, thus resulting in the following phenomenon: the delexical verb can be roughly regarded as a semi-auxiliary according to semantic standard whereas it can be viewed as a general lexical verb according to syntactic standard. In this light the recategorization reflected by the delexical verb can be summarized as“semantic change before syntactic behavior”.
As far as the constructional property of the English delexical structure is concerned, this structure is an epitome of the constructional schema [VDeverbal + NPEventive], where the variable“VDeverbal”is almost close (consisting mainly of such verbs as have, take, give and do) while elements represented by“NPEventive”are open. It should be noted that the syntactic attributes and semantic attributes are linked directly to this construction. Moreover the relation between this schema and the delexical structure in use is one of schema to instance. Deeply entrenched in our mind, this schema can provide a conceptual framework, benefit our organization and arrangement of language structures and assist us in the expression of language structure. This dissertation is mainly devoted to the exploration of the constructional meaning expressed by the typical delexical structures introduced by three delexical verbs: have, take and give. To a great degree whether an eventive noun can occur in one or more delexical structures is subject not only to its meaning but also to its agreement with the constructional meaning of the whole structure. In addition the delexical structure is defined as idiomatized construction and may be viewed as“familiar pieces familiarly arranged”.
When it comes to the constructional function of the English delexical structure, this structure performs a scaffolding role and supplies a constructional framework for the realization of the following functions: modification, focusing, politeness, bounding, and plexity-setting. To begin with this structure, from the perspective of modification, presents a potential position for the addition of modifiers, thus facilitating the creation of troublesome sentences. Secondly on the side of focusing, this structure acts as a syntactic strategy for the speaker to put focus on event and can be perceived as an ostensive with explicit pragmatic motive. Thirdly from the angle of politeness this structure can play the role of minimizing quantity of an activity and takes the role of a fuzziness-displaying device. Fourthly after the unbounded verb’s entrance into the delexical structure by conversion, this structure can impose a boundary on an activity process through a determiner which delimits the quantity of the activity realized by the eventive noun. As a result the activity will acquire an inherent endpoint and become bounded or telic, which also makes the whole delexical structure bounded. Fifthly in light of plexity-setting this structure serves as a syntactic device which can change the plexity of an activity, since the nominalization of an event can recategorize an activity into a classifiable entity. In this regard the delexical structure comes into play in two aspects: assigning of physical quantity by the recategorization of an activity as a‘thing’; excerpting of a unit from a multiplex activity.
Therefore the English delexical structure is becoming a conventionalized formulistic model. In addition to the expression of eventive meaning this structure can also deliver functional messages. It is in this respect that this structure is referred to as an“idiom with pragmatic elements”. In a nutshell functional factors are critical in the explanation of delexical structures. It must be admitted, however, that these factors evolve and develop in the long history of the delexical structure.
In a word the contribution of this dissertation is as follows: it is an in-depth study of the English delexical structure from the angle of cognitive linguistics. This is a brand new research for this structure. This dissertation uncovers the cognitive basis and embodied basis on which this structure is built, elucidates the semantic characteristics of the English delexical verb and the eventive noun and clears up the constructional meaning and constructional function of this structure. It is fair to say that this dissertation enriches the study of the English delexical structure.
At the same time, this dissertation may also have some shortcomings, which are shown in two aspects. First of all a larger corpus consisting of the English delexical structure is badly needed. In contrast with theoretical discussion on the basis of a small sample of instances, future research is supposed to be conducted on a much wider analysis of data. In the second place since cognitive linguistics is not ripe, it is bound to have inaccuracy and arbitrariness in its interpretation of this structure. It is unavoidable as to how to give an accurate account of the English delexical structure by means of a unified general cognitive principle.
引文
①关于如何区分一致式与隐喻式,请参看胡壮麟等(2005:304-306)。
[1] Algeo, J. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate [A]. In B. Aarts and C. Meyer (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203-217.
[2] Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Allerton, D. 1982. Valency and the English Verb [M]. London: Academic Press.
[4] Allerton, D. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English [M]. London: Routledge.
[5] Alsina, A. 1996. Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[6] Atkins, S. et al. 2003. Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence [A]. In T. Fontenelle (ed.). FrameNet and Frame Semantics [C]. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 251-280.
[7] Bailey, R. 1996. Nineteenth-Century English [M]. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
[8] Baker, M. 1989. Object sharing and projection of serial verb constructions [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (4): 513-553.
[9] Barber, C. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-Day English [M]. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
[10] Bergen, B. 2005. Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding [A]. In S. Coulson and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought [C]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 255-278.
[11] Biber, D. et al. 2000. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[12] Brinton, L. 1996. Attitudes towards increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English [J]. Journal of English Linguistics, 24: 186–205.
[13] Brinton, L. 2008. Where grammar and lexis meet: Composite predicates in English [A]. In E. Seoane and M. López-Couso (eds.). Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 33–53.
[14] Brinton, L. and M. Akimoto. 1999. Introduction [A]. In L. Brinton and M. Akimoto (eds.).Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1-20.
[15] Brinton, L. and E. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Brugman, C. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy [J]. Language Sciences, 23: 551-578.
[17] Bussmann, H. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [Z]. London: Routledge.
[18] Butt, M. 2003. The light verb jungle [OL]. http:// edvarda.hf.ntnu.no/ ling/tross/ Butt. pdf.
[19] Butt, M. and W. Geuder. 2001. On the (semi) lexical status of light verbs [A]. In N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.). Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59: 323-370.
[20] Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[21] Bybee, J. 2003. Mechanisms of change: The role of frequency [A]. In B. Joseph and R. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 602-647.
[22] Bybee, J. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s responses to repetition [J]. Language, 82 (4): 711-733.
[23] Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of the World [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[24] Campbell, L. and M. Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[25] Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[26] Chalker, S. and E. Weiner. 2001. Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar [Z]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[27] Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[28] Claridge, C. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-based Study [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[29] Clark, E. 1978. Discovering what words can do [A]. In D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen and K. Todrys (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 34-57.
[30] Clark, E. and H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs [J]. Language, 55: 767-811.
[31] Clausner, T. and W. Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 10: 1-31.
[32] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33] Croft, W. 2002. Typology and Universals [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[34] Croft, W. 2007. Construction grammar and usage-based model [A]. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 499-510.
[35] Croft, W. and D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36] Cruse, A. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
[37] Crystal, D. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Sixth Edition) [Z]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[38] Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[39] DeLancey, S. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition [A]. In R. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53-68.
[40] Dixon, R. 2005. A New Approach to English Grammar: On Semantic Principles [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[41] Dras, M. and M. Johnson. 1996. Death and lightness: using a demographic model to find support verbs [OL]. http://arxiv.com/PS_cache/cmp-lg/pdf/9610/9610001v1.pdf.
[42] DuBois, J. 1985. Competing motivations [A]. In J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-30.
[43] DuBois, J. 2003. Discourse and grammar [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47-87.
[44] Evans, V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4): 491-534.
[45] Evans, V. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[46] Evans, V. and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
[47] Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case [A]. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.
[48] Fillmore, C., P. Kay and M. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone [J]. Language, 64: 501-538.
[49] Fischer, O. and W. van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax [A]. In R. Hogg and D. Dension (eds.). A History of the English Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-198.
[50] Folli, R. et al. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates [J]. Lingua, 115: 1365–1401.
[51] G?rdenfors, P. 1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics [A]. In A. Jens and P. G?rdenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics-Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19-36.
[52] Gentner, D. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning [A]. In S. Kuczaj (ed.). Language Development [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2: 98-131.
[53] Gibbs, R. and H. Colston. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 6: 347-378.
[54] Gibbs, R. and T. Matlock. 2008. Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence [A]. In R. Gibbs (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 161-176.
[55] Gilchrist, J. 1796. A Grammar of the Hindustani Language [M]. Calcutta: Chronicle Press.
[56] Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[57] Givón, T. 1998. The functional approach to grammar [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 41-66.
[58] Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 1 [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[59] Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[60] Goldberg, A. 1998. Patterns of experience in patterns of language [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 203-220.
[61] Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 3: 1-11.
[62] Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[63] Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[64] Greenbaum, S. 2002. An Introduction to English Grammar [M]. London: Pearson Education Limited.
[65] Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 373-422.
[66] Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester. 1988. Light verbs andθ-marking [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 205-232.
[67] Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation [J]. Language, 59: 781-819.
[68] Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[69] Hale, K. and S. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations [A]. In K. Hale and S. Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger [C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53-109.
[70] Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part I) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 37-81.
[71] Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. Dimensions of discourse analysis: Grammar [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1: Dimensions of Discourse [C]. London: Academic Press, 29-56.
[72] Halliday, M. A. K. 1985b. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[73] Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[74] Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
[75] Halliday, M. A. K. and C. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition [M]. London: Cassell.
[76] Halliday, M.A.K. and C. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Third Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[77] Harris, A. and L. Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[78] Haspelmath, M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible [J]. Linguistics, 37(6): 1043-1068.
[79] Hatch, E. and C. Brown. 1995. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[80] Heine, B., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[81] Heine, B. and T. Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[82] Himmelmann, N. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? [A]. In W. Bisang, P. Nikolaus and B. Wiemer (eds.). What Makes Grammaticalization- A Look from its Fringes and its Components [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-40.
[83] Hiroe, N. 2006. Aspect in English LVCs [J]. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 8:1-17.
[84] Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar [J]. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13: 139-157.
[85] Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse [J]. Language, 56: 251-299.
[86] Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar [J]. Language, 60 (4): 703-752.
[87] Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[88] Horrocks, G. and M. Stavrou. 2010. Morphological aspect and the function and distribution of cognate objects across languages [A]. In M. Hovav, E. Doron and I. Sichel (eds.). Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 284-308.
[89] Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[90] Iglesias-R′abade, L. 2001. Composite predicates in Middle English with the verbs nimen and taken [J]. Studia Neophilologica, 73: 143-163.
[91] IRET. 1933. Second Interim Report on English Collocations [C]. Tokyo: Institute for Research in English Teaching.
[92] Jackendoff, R. 1974. A deep structure projection rule [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 5 (4):481-506.
[93] Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[94] Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[95] Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[96] Jespersen, O. 1954-1958. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, (7 volumes) [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[97] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[98] Karimi, S. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional? [J]. Lexicology, 3 (1): 273–318.
[99] Kearns, K. 2002. Light verbs in English [OL]. http://www.ling.canterbury.ac.nz/kate/ lightverbs.pdf.
[100] Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language [M]. London: Routledge.
[101] K?vecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Second Edition) [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[102] Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts [J]. Chicago Linguistic Society, 13: 236-287.
[103] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[104] Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (Second Edition) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[105] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[106] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[107] Langacker, R. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[108] Langacker, R. 1987b. Nouns and verbs [J]. Language, 63 (1): 53-94.
[109] Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[110] Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[111] Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[112] Langacker, R. 2003. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions [J]. Language and Linguistics, 4 (2): 251-278.
[113] Langacker, R. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so [A]. In F. Ibàìez and M. Cervel (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 101-159.
[114] Langacker, R. 2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1): 107-151.
[115] Langacker, R. 2007. Cognitive grammar [A]. In G. Dirk and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 421-462.
[116] Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[117] Langacker, R. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[118] Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
[119] Leech, G. 2006. A Glossary of English Grammar [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
[120] Leech, G. and J. Svartvik. 2002. A Communicative Grammar of English (Third Edition) [M]. London: Longman.
[121] Lehmann. C. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change [J]. Linguae Stile, 20: 303-318 .
[122] Live, A. 1973. The take-have phrasal in English [J]. Linguistics, 95: 31-50.
[123] Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[124] Martin, J. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[125] Martinet, A. 1969. Langue et fonction [M]. Paris: Gonchier/Denoel.
[126] Mathesius, V. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis [M].The Hague: Mouton.
[127] Matlock, T. 2004. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion [A]. In G. Radden and K. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 221-248.
[128] McCarthy, M. 1999. What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication? [J]. Studies in English Language and Literature, 1: 233-249.
[129] Mel’cuk, I. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions [A]. In A. Cowie (ed.).Phraseology Theory, Analysis, and Applications [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 23-53.
[130] Mirto, I. 2007. Dream a little dream of me: Cognate predicates in English [OL]. http:// infolingu.univ-mlv.fr /Colloques/Bonifacio/proceedings/mirto.pdf.
[131] Miyamoto, T. 2000. The Light Verb Construction in Japanese: the Role of the Verbal Noun [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
[132] Mohanan, T. 2006. Grammatical verbs (with special reference to light verbs) [A]. In M. Everaert and H. Riemsdijk (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2 [C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 459-492.
[133] Moralejo-G′arate, T. 2001. Composite predicates and idiomatisation in Middle English: a corpus-based approach [J]. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36: 171-187.
[134] Newman, J. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[135] Newmeyer, F. 2002. Where is functional explanation? [OL]. http:// faculty. washington.edu / fjn/ Newmeyer_CLS_2001. Pdf.
[136] Nickel, G. 1968. Complex verbal structures in English [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6: 1-21.
[137] Nida, E. 1993. Language, Culture and Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[138] N?hr, P. 1989. The treatment of support verbs and predicative nouns in Danish [A]. In J.
[139] Pind (ed.). Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics [C]. Reykjavik: Inst. of Lexicography.
[140] Paradis, C. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes, 4: 541-573.
[141] Partington, A. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change—The case of the intensifier [A]. In M. Baker et al. (eds.). Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177-192.
[142] Poulsen, S. 2005. Collocations as a Language Resource: A Functional and Cognitive Study in English Phraseology [D]. Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark.
[143] Romaine, S. (ed.). 2002. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4 [C]. Beijing: Peking University Press.
[144] Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman.
[145] Radden, G. and R. Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
[146] Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[147] Rice, S. 1987. Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives [J]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13: 422-434.
[148] Riemer, N. 2010. Introduing Semantics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[149] Robinson, P. and N. Ellis. (eds.) 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition[C]. London: Routledge.
[150] Rohrer, T. 2007. Embodiment and experientialism [A]. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-47.
[151] Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 (3): 192-233.
[152] Santibá?ez, F. 2002. The object image schema and other dependent schemas [J]. Atlantis, XXIV (2): 183-201.
[153] Sapir, E. 2002. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[154] Sinclair, J. 1987. Grammar in the dictionary [A]. In J. Sinclair (ed.). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing [C]. London: Harper Collins, 104-115.
[155] Sinclair, J. 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar [M]. London: Harper Collins.
[156] Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[157] Sinclair, J. 2003. Reading Concordances [M]. London: Pearson Education Limited.
[158] Smith, A. 2009. Light verbs in Australian, New Zealand and British English [A]. In P. Peters, P. Collins and A. Smith (eds). Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 139-155.
[159] Solso, R., M. MacLin and O. MacLin. 2005. Cognitive Psychology (Seventh Edition) [M]. New York: Pearson Education, Inc..
[160] Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Second Edition) [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[161] Stein, G. 1991. The phrasal verb type‘to have a look’in Modern English [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 19: 1–29.
[162] Stein, G. and R. Quirk. 1991. On having a look in a corpus [A]. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik[C]. London: Longman, 19-203.
[163] Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[164] Taylor, J. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[165] Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[166] Taylor, J. 2008. Prototypes in cognitive linguistics [A]. In P. Robins and N. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Routledge, 39-65.
[167] Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[168] Tomaselo, M. 1998. Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, vii-xxiii.
[169] Trudgill, P., T. Nevalainen and I. Wischer. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English [J]. English Language and Linguistics, 6: 1–15.
[170] Ungerer, F. and H. Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (Second Edition) [M]. London: Longman.
[171] Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[172] Vendler, Z. 1970. Say what you think [A]. In J. Cown (ed.). Studies in Thought and Language[C]. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 79-97.
[173] Verde, M. 2003. Shedding light on SHED, CAST and THROW as nodes of extended lexical units [OL]. http: //ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2003/papers/verde.pdf.
[174] Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[175] Wierzbicka, A. 1982. Why can you Have a Drink when you can’t *Have an Eat? [J]. Language, 58 (4): 753–799.
[176] Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[177] Zhou, H. 1998. Cognate objects in Chinese [J]. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics,17: 263-284.
[178] Zipf, G. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
[179]陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[180]陈满华. 2009.关于构式语法理论的几个问题[J].外语教学与研究, 5: 337-344.
[181]陈前瑞. 2008.汉语体貌研究的类型学视野[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[182]戴浩一. 1990.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上) (叶蜚声译) [J].国外语言学, 4: 21-27.
[183]戴浩一. 1991.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下) (叶蜚声译) [J].国外语言学, 1: 25-33.
[184]刁晏斌. 2004.虚义动词论[D].南开大学.
[185]费尔南德·莫塞. 1990.英语简史(水天同等译) [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[186]冯胜利. 2005.轻动词移位与古今汉语的动宾关系[J].语言科学, 1: 3-16.
[187]高航. 2009.认知语法与汉语转类问题[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社.
[188]郭锐. 2004.现代汉语词类研究[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[189]胡壮麟,朱永生,张德禄,李战子. 2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[190]李福印. 2008.认知语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[191]刘辰诞. 2007.界与有界化[J].外语学刊, 2: 53-58.
[192]刘正光. 2006.语言非范畴化:语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[193]刘正光,曹志希. 2007.指称意义与句法变化[J].外国语, 2: 37-44.
[194]牛保义,徐盛桓. 2000.关于英汉语语法化比较研究—英汉语比较研究的一个新视角[J].外语与外语教学, 9: 2-6.
[195]彭睿. 2009.语法化“扩展”效应及相关理论问题[J].汉语学报, 1: 50-64.
[196]仇伟. 2006.乏词义结构的认知及功能研究[J].外国语言文学, 1: 1-5.
[197]仇伟. 2010a.认知维度的英汉乏词义结构研究[J].外国教学, 3: 32-35.
[198]仇伟. 2010b.英语事件类双及物构式的认知研究[J].天津外国语学院学报, 4: 28-31.
[199]屈承熹. 2005.汉语认知功能语法[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.
[200]沈家煊. 1994.“语法化”研究综观[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 17-24.
[201]沈家煊. 1997.类型学中的标记模式[J].外语教学与研究, 1: 1-10.
[202]沈家煊. 1999.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社.
[203]沈家煊. 2006.认知与汉语语法研究[C].北京:商务印书馆.
[204]沈家煊. 2008.认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A].沈阳,冯胜利.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].北京:商务印书馆, 305-320.
[205]石毓智. 2000.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社.
[206]石毓智. 2006.语法的概念基础[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[207]石毓智. 2008.认知能力与语言学理论[M].上海:学林出版社.
[208]石毓智,李讷. 2001.汉语语法化的历程—形态句法发展的动因和机制[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[209]陶红印. 2000.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态属性[J].语言研究, 3: 21-38.
[210]王甦,汪安圣. 2009.认知心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[211]王寅. 2006.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[212]王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[213]文旭. 2001.认知语言学:诠释与思考[J].外国语, 2: 29-36
[214]文旭. 2002.认知语言学的研究目标、原则和方法[J].外语教学与研究, 2: 90-97.
[215]吴福祥. 2006.语法化与汉语历史语法研究[C].合肥:安徽教育出版社.
[216]夏基松. 2009.现代西方哲学(第二版) [M].上海:上海人民出版社.
[217]谢应光. 2008.语言研究中的离散性和连续性概念[J].重庆师范大学学报, 2: 61-66.
[218]徐盛桓. 2002.语义数量特征与英语中动结构[J].外语教学与研究, 6: 436-443.
[219]徐盛桓. 2005.句法研究的认知语言学视野[J].外语与外语教学, 4: 1-7.
[220]徐盛桓. 2007.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 253-260.
[221]徐通锵. 1997.基础语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[222]严辰松. 2000.语言理据探究[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 6: 1-6.
[223]严辰松. 2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 4: 6-11.
[224]袁毓林. 1995.词类范畴的家族相似性[J].中国社会科学, 1: 154-170.
[225]袁毓林. 2004.论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J].语言研究, 4: 1-10.
[226]张伯江. 2005.功能语法与汉语研究[J].语言科学, 6: 42-53.
[227]张德禄,刘世铸. 2006.形式与意义的范畴化—兼评《评价语言—英语的评价系统》[J].外语教学与研究, 6: 423-427.
[228]张高远. 2008.英汉名词化对比研究—认知·功能取向的理论解释[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[229]张克定. 2000.句式变化的认知语用理据[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 4: 6-10.
[230]张克定. 2004.词义研究的新动向:动态意义建构论[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 315-316.
[231]张克定. 2005.认知语言学的三个主要假设[J].外语学刊, 1: 106-109。
[232]张克定. 2010.英语语法的认知途径—《英语认知语法》述评[J].中国外语, 2: 106-109.
[233]张今,陈云清. 1981.英汉比较语法纲要[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[234]张今,姜玲. 2005.英语句型的动态研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
[235]张今,张克定. 1998.英汉语信息结构对比研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社.
[236]张敏. 1998.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[237]张敏. 2008.自然句法理论与汉语语法象似性研究[A].沈阳,冯胜利.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].北京:商务印书馆, 536-562.
[238]张韧. 2009.关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角[J].当代语言学, 3: 233-243.
[239]郑定欧. 1999.词汇语法理论与汉语语法研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
[240]朱德熙. 1985.现代书面汉语里的虚化动词和名动词[J].北京大学学报, 5: 1-6.
[241]朱德熙. 2010.语法分析讲稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[1] Algeo, J. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate [A]. In B. Aarts and C. Meyer (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203-217.
[2] Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Allerton, D. 1982. Valency and the English Verb [M]. London: Academic Press.
[4] Allerton, D. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English [M]. London: Routledge.
[5] Alsina, A. 1996. Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[6] Atkins, S. et al. 2003. Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence [A]. In T. Fontenelle (ed.). FrameNet and Frame Semantics [C]. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 251-280.
[7] Bailey, R. 1996. Nineteenth-Century English [M]. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
[8] Baker, M. 1989. Object sharing and projection of serial verb constructions [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (4): 513-553.
[9] Barber, C. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-Day English [M]. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
[10] Bergen, B. 2005. Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding [A]. In S. Coulson and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought [C]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 255-278.
[11] Biber, D. et al. 2000. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[12] Brinton, L. 1996. Attitudes towards increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English [J]. Journal of English Linguistics, 24: 186–205.
[13] Brinton, L. 2008. Where grammar and lexis meet: Composite predicates in English [A]. In E. Seoane and M. López-Couso (eds.). Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 33–53.
[14] Brinton, L. and M. Akimoto. 1999. Introduction [A]. In L. Brinton and M. Akimoto (eds.).Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1-20.
[15] Brinton, L. and E. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Brugman, C. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy [J]. Language Sciences, 23: 551-578.
[17] Bussmann, H. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [Z]. London: Routledge.
[18] Butt, M. 2003. The light verb jungle [OL]. http:// edvarda.hf.ntnu.no/ ling/tross/ Butt. pdf.
[19] Butt, M. and W. Geuder. 2001. On the (semi) lexical status of light verbs [A]. In N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.). Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59: 323-370.
[20] Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[21] Bybee, J. 2003. Mechanisms of change: The role of frequency [A]. In B. Joseph and R. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 602-647.
[22] Bybee, J. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s responses to repetition [J]. Language, 82 (4): 711-733.
[23] Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of the World [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[24] Campbell, L. and M. Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[25] Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[26] Chalker, S. and E. Weiner. 2001. Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar [Z]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[27] Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[28] Claridge, C. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-based Study [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[29] Clark, E. 1978. Discovering what words can do [A]. In D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen and K. Todrys (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 34-57.
[30] Clark, E. and H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs [J]. Language, 55: 767-811.
[31] Clausner, T. and W. Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 10: 1-31.
[32] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33] Croft, W. 2002. Typology and Universals [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[34] Croft, W. 2007. Construction grammar and usage-based model [A]. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 499-510.
[35] Croft, W. and D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36] Cruse, A. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
[37] Crystal, D. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Sixth Edition) [Z]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[38] Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[39] DeLancey, S. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition [A]. In R. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53-68.
[40] Dixon, R. 2005. A New Approach to English Grammar: On Semantic Principles [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[41] Dras, M. and M. Johnson. 1996. Death and lightness: using a demographic model to find support verbs [OL]. http://arxiv.com/PS_cache/cmp-lg/pdf/9610/9610001v1.pdf.
[42] DuBois, J. 1985. Competing motivations [A]. In J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-30.
[43] DuBois, J. 2003. Discourse and grammar [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47-87.
[44] Evans, V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4): 491-534.
[45] Evans, V. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[46] Evans, V. and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
[47] Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case [A]. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.
[48] Fillmore, C., P. Kay and M. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone [J]. Language, 64: 501-538.
[49] Fischer, O. and W. van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax [A]. In R. Hogg and D. Dension (eds.). A History of the English Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-198.
[50] Folli, R. et al. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates [J]. Lingua, 115: 1365–1401.
[51] G?rdenfors, P. 1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics [A]. In A. Jens and P. G?rdenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics-Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19-36.
[52] Gentner, D. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning [A]. In S. Kuczaj (ed.). Language Development [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2: 98-131.
[53] Gibbs, R. and H. Colston. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 6: 347-378.
[54] Gibbs, R. and T. Matlock. 2008. Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence [A]. In R. Gibbs (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 161-176.
[55] Gilchrist, J. 1796. A Grammar of the Hindustani Language [M]. Calcutta: Chronicle Press.
[56] Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[57] Givón, T. 1998. The functional approach to grammar [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 41-66.
[58] Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 1 [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[59] Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[60] Goldberg, A. 1998. Patterns of experience in patterns of language [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 203-220.
[61] Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 3: 1-11.
[62] Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[63] Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[64] Greenbaum, S. 2002. An Introduction to English Grammar [M]. London: Pearson Education Limited.
[65] Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 373-422.
[66] Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester. 1988. Light verbs andθ-marking [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 205-232.
[67] Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation [J]. Language, 59: 781-819.
[68] Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[69] Hale, K. and S. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations [A]. In K. Hale and S. Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger [C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53-109.
[70] Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part I) [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 37-81.
[71] Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. Dimensions of discourse analysis: Grammar [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1: Dimensions of Discourse [C]. London: Academic Press, 29-56.
[72] Halliday, M. A. K. 1985b. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[73] Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[74] Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
[75] Halliday, M. A. K. and C. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition [M]. London: Cassell.
[76] Halliday, M.A.K. and C. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Third Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[77] Harris, A. and L. Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[78] Haspelmath, M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible [J]. Linguistics, 37(6): 1043-1068.
[79] Hatch, E. and C. Brown. 1995. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[80] Heine, B., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[81] Heine, B. and T. Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[82] Himmelmann, N. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? [A]. In W. Bisang, P. Nikolaus and B. Wiemer (eds.). What Makes Grammaticalization- A Look from its Fringes and its Components [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-40.
[83] Hiroe, N. 2006. Aspect in English LVCs [J]. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 8:1-17.
[84] Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar [J]. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13: 139-157.
[85] Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse [J]. Language, 56: 251-299.
[86] Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar [J]. Language, 60 (4): 703-752.
[87] Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[88] Horrocks, G. and M. Stavrou. 2010. Morphological aspect and the function and distribution of cognate objects across languages [A]. In M. Hovav, E. Doron and I. Sichel (eds.). Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 284-308.
[89] Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[90] Iglesias-R′abade, L. 2001. Composite predicates in Middle English with the verbs nimen and taken [J]. Studia Neophilologica, 73: 143-163.
[91] IRET. 1933. Second Interim Report on English Collocations [C]. Tokyo: Institute for Research in English Teaching.
[92] Jackendoff, R. 1974. A deep structure projection rule [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 5 (4):481-506.
[93] Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[94] Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[95] Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[96] Jespersen, O. 1954-1958. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, (7 volumes) [M]. London: Allen and Unwin.
[97] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[98] Karimi, S. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional? [J]. Lexicology, 3 (1): 273–318.
[99] Kearns, K. 2002. Light verbs in English [OL]. http://www.ling.canterbury.ac.nz/kate/ lightverbs.pdf.
[100] Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language [M]. London: Routledge.
[101] K?vecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Second Edition) [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[102] Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts [J]. Chicago Linguistic Society, 13: 236-287.
[103] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[104] Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (Second Edition) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[105] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[106] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[107] Langacker, R. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[108] Langacker, R. 1987b. Nouns and verbs [J]. Language, 63 (1): 53-94.
[109] Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[110] Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[111] Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[112] Langacker, R. 2003. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions [J]. Language and Linguistics, 4 (2): 251-278.
[113] Langacker, R. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so [A]. In F. Ibàìez and M. Cervel (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 101-159.
[114] Langacker, R. 2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1): 107-151.
[115] Langacker, R. 2007. Cognitive grammar [A]. In G. Dirk and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 421-462.
[116] Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[117] Langacker, R. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[118] Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman.
[119] Leech, G. 2006. A Glossary of English Grammar [Z]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
[120] Leech, G. and J. Svartvik. 2002. A Communicative Grammar of English (Third Edition) [M]. London: Longman.
[121] Lehmann. C. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change [J]. Linguae Stile, 20: 303-318 .
[122] Live, A. 1973. The take-have phrasal in English [J]. Linguistics, 95: 31-50.
[123] Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[124] Martin, J. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[125] Martinet, A. 1969. Langue et fonction [M]. Paris: Gonchier/Denoel.
[126] Mathesius, V. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis [M].The Hague: Mouton.
[127] Matlock, T. 2004. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion [A]. In G. Radden and K. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 221-248.
[128] McCarthy, M. 1999. What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication? [J]. Studies in English Language and Literature, 1: 233-249.
[129] Mel’cuk, I. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions [A]. In A. Cowie (ed.).Phraseology Theory, Analysis, and Applications [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 23-53.
[130] Mirto, I. 2007. Dream a little dream of me: Cognate predicates in English [OL]. http:// infolingu.univ-mlv.fr /Colloques/Bonifacio/proceedings/mirto.pdf.
[131] Miyamoto, T. 2000. The Light Verb Construction in Japanese: the Role of the Verbal Noun [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
[132] Mohanan, T. 2006. Grammatical verbs (with special reference to light verbs) [A]. In M. Everaert and H. Riemsdijk (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2 [C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 459-492.
[133] Moralejo-G′arate, T. 2001. Composite predicates and idiomatisation in Middle English: a corpus-based approach [J]. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36: 171-187.
[134] Newman, J. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[135] Newmeyer, F. 2002. Where is functional explanation? [OL]. http:// faculty. washington.edu / fjn/ Newmeyer_CLS_2001. Pdf.
[136] Nickel, G. 1968. Complex verbal structures in English [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6: 1-21.
[137] Nida, E. 1993. Language, Culture and Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[138] N?hr, P. 1989. The treatment of support verbs and predicative nouns in Danish [A]. In J.
[139] Pind (ed.). Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics [C]. Reykjavik: Inst. of Lexicography.
[140] Paradis, C. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes, 4: 541-573.
[141] Partington, A. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change—The case of the intensifier [A]. In M. Baker et al. (eds.). Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177-192.
[142] Poulsen, S. 2005. Collocations as a Language Resource: A Functional and Cognitive Study in English Phraseology [D]. Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark.
[143] Romaine, S. (ed.). 2002. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4 [C]. Beijing: Peking University Press.
[144] Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman.
[145] Radden, G. and R. Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
[146] Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[147] Rice, S. 1987. Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives [J]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13: 422-434.
[148] Riemer, N. 2010. Introduing Semantics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[149] Robinson, P. and N. Ellis. (eds.) 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition[C]. London: Routledge.
[150] Rohrer, T. 2007. Embodiment and experientialism [A]. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-47.
[151] Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 (3): 192-233.
[152] Santibá?ez, F. 2002. The object image schema and other dependent schemas [J]. Atlantis, XXIV (2): 183-201.
[153] Sapir, E. 2002. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[154] Sinclair, J. 1987. Grammar in the dictionary [A]. In J. Sinclair (ed.). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing [C]. London: Harper Collins, 104-115.
[155] Sinclair, J. 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar [M]. London: Harper Collins.
[156] Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[157] Sinclair, J. 2003. Reading Concordances [M]. London: Pearson Education Limited.
[158] Smith, A. 2009. Light verbs in Australian, New Zealand and British English [A]. In P. Peters, P. Collins and A. Smith (eds). Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 139-155.
[159] Solso, R., M. MacLin and O. MacLin. 2005. Cognitive Psychology (Seventh Edition) [M]. New York: Pearson Education, Inc..
[160] Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Second Edition) [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[161] Stein, G. 1991. The phrasal verb type‘to have a look’in Modern English [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 19: 1–29.
[162] Stein, G. and R. Quirk. 1991. On having a look in a corpus [A]. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik[C]. London: Longman, 19-203.
[163] Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[164] Taylor, J. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[165] Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[166] Taylor, J. 2008. Prototypes in cognitive linguistics [A]. In P. Robins and N. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Routledge, 39-65.
[167] Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[168] Tomaselo, M. 1998. Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure [A]. In M. Tomaselo (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 1 [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, vii-xxiii.
[169] Trudgill, P., T. Nevalainen and I. Wischer. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English [J]. English Language and Linguistics, 6: 1–15.
[170] Ungerer, F. and H. Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (Second Edition) [M]. London: Longman.
[171] Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[172] Vendler, Z. 1970. Say what you think [A]. In J. Cown (ed.). Studies in Thought and Language[C]. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 79-97.
[173] Verde, M. 2003. Shedding light on SHED, CAST and THROW as nodes of extended lexical units [OL]. http: //ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2003/papers/verde.pdf.
[174] Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[175] Wierzbicka, A. 1982. Why can you Have a Drink when you can’t *Have an Eat? [J]. Language, 58 (4): 753–799.
[176] Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[177] Zhou, H. 1998. Cognate objects in Chinese [J]. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics,17: 263-284.
[178] Zipf, G. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
[179]陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[180]陈满华. 2009.关于构式语法理论的几个问题[J].外语教学与研究, 5: 337-344.
[181]陈前瑞. 2008.汉语体貌研究的类型学视野[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[182]戴浩一. 1990.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上) (叶蜚声译) [J].国外语言学, 4: 21-27.
[183]戴浩一. 1991.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下) (叶蜚声译) [J].国外语言学, 1: 25-33.
[184]刁晏斌. 2004.虚义动词论[D].南开大学.
[185]费尔南德·莫塞. 1990.英语简史(水天同等译) [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[186]冯胜利. 2005.轻动词移位与古今汉语的动宾关系[J].语言科学, 1: 3-16.
[187]高航. 2009.认知语法与汉语转类问题[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社.
[188]郭锐. 2004.现代汉语词类研究[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[189]胡壮麟,朱永生,张德禄,李战子. 2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[190]李福印. 2008.认知语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[191]刘辰诞. 2007.界与有界化[J].外语学刊, 2: 53-58.
[192]刘正光. 2006.语言非范畴化:语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[193]刘正光,曹志希. 2007.指称意义与句法变化[J].外国语, 2: 37-44.
[194]牛保义,徐盛桓. 2000.关于英汉语语法化比较研究—英汉语比较研究的一个新视角[J].外语与外语教学, 9: 2-6.
[195]彭睿. 2009.语法化“扩展”效应及相关理论问题[J].汉语学报, 1: 50-64.
[196]仇伟. 2006.乏词义结构的认知及功能研究[J].外国语言文学, 1: 1-5.
[197]仇伟. 2010a.认知维度的英汉乏词义结构研究[J].外国教学, 3: 32-35.
[198]仇伟. 2010b.英语事件类双及物构式的认知研究[J].天津外国语学院学报, 4: 28-31.
[199]屈承熹. 2005.汉语认知功能语法[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.
[200]沈家煊. 1994.“语法化”研究综观[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 17-24.
[201]沈家煊. 1997.类型学中的标记模式[J].外语教学与研究, 1: 1-10.
[202]沈家煊. 1999.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社.
[203]沈家煊. 2006.认知与汉语语法研究[C].北京:商务印书馆.
[204]沈家煊. 2008.认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A].沈阳,冯胜利.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].北京:商务印书馆, 305-320.
[205]石毓智. 2000.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社.
[206]石毓智. 2006.语法的概念基础[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[207]石毓智. 2008.认知能力与语言学理论[M].上海:学林出版社.
[208]石毓智,李讷. 2001.汉语语法化的历程—形态句法发展的动因和机制[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[209]陶红印. 2000.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态属性[J].语言研究, 3: 21-38.
[210]王甦,汪安圣. 2009.认知心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[211]王寅. 2006.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[212]王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[213]文旭. 2001.认知语言学:诠释与思考[J].外国语, 2: 29-36
[214]文旭. 2002.认知语言学的研究目标、原则和方法[J].外语教学与研究, 2: 90-97.
[215]吴福祥. 2006.语法化与汉语历史语法研究[C].合肥:安徽教育出版社.
[216]夏基松. 2009.现代西方哲学(第二版) [M].上海:上海人民出版社.
[217]谢应光. 2008.语言研究中的离散性和连续性概念[J].重庆师范大学学报, 2: 61-66.
[218]徐盛桓. 2002.语义数量特征与英语中动结构[J].外语教学与研究, 6: 436-443.
[219]徐盛桓. 2005.句法研究的认知语言学视野[J].外语与外语教学, 4: 1-7.
[220]徐盛桓. 2007.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 253-260.
[221]徐通锵. 1997.基础语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[222]严辰松. 2000.语言理据探究[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 6: 1-6.
[223]严辰松. 2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 4: 6-11.
[224]袁毓林. 1995.词类范畴的家族相似性[J].中国社会科学, 1: 154-170.
[225]袁毓林. 2004.论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J].语言研究, 4: 1-10.
[226]张伯江. 2005.功能语法与汉语研究[J].语言科学, 6: 42-53.
[227]张德禄,刘世铸. 2006.形式与意义的范畴化—兼评《评价语言—英语的评价系统》[J].外语教学与研究, 6: 423-427.
[228]张高远. 2008.英汉名词化对比研究—认知·功能取向的理论解释[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[229]张克定. 2000.句式变化的认知语用理据[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 4: 6-10.
[230]张克定. 2004.词义研究的新动向:动态意义建构论[J].外语教学与研究, 4: 315-316.
[231]张克定. 2005.认知语言学的三个主要假设[J].外语学刊, 1: 106-109。
[232]张克定. 2010.英语语法的认知途径—《英语认知语法》述评[J].中国外语, 2: 106-109.
[233]张今,陈云清. 1981.英汉比较语法纲要[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[234]张今,姜玲. 2005.英语句型的动态研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
[235]张今,张克定. 1998.英汉语信息结构对比研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社.
[236]张敏. 1998.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[237]张敏. 2008.自然句法理论与汉语语法象似性研究[A].沈阳,冯胜利.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].北京:商务印书馆, 536-562.
[238]张韧. 2009.关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角[J].当代语言学, 3: 233-243.
[239]郑定欧. 1999.词汇语法理论与汉语语法研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
[240]朱德熙. 1985.现代书面汉语里的虚化动词和名动词[J].北京大学学报, 5: 1-6.
[241]朱德熙. 2010.语法分析讲稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社.