省略的认知语言学研究与翻译教学
摘要
省略是自然语言中的普遍现象,其研究在语言哲学、语法学、语义学、语用学、修辞学、心理学等学科中都具有悠久的历史。省略在不同的语篇中执行着不同的功能,这些功能主要有语法功能、修辞功能和衔接功能等。省略具有普遍性、复杂性和跳跃性等特点。长期以来,对外语教师和外语学习者来说,省略一直是教学上的一大难题,尤其是在弱势省略的语篇翻译教学方面,表现得更加突出。主要原因是受传统语言学研究的影响,在省略语篇的理解上出现了片面性,从而导致在分类上拘泥于在语义空位上一对一填补的操作模式,最终无法建立一个令人信服的科学的分类系统,并以此来有效地指导省略语篇的翻译教学。
省略的认知语言学研究表明：1)省略的本质是新信息的突显。按照图形—背景理论,已知信息被视为背景,新信息被视为图形,已知信息当作背景被省略,新信息当作图形被突显；2)省略与视角密切相关,省略的非范畴化具有普遍性；3)省略的心理预设为发话者与受话者背景知识的对接；4)理想认知模式(ICMs)是空位语义搜索、定位、筛选与匹配的理论依据。
本论文运用认知语言学关于识解的观点来解读省略语篇,完成省略语篇中空位语义的搜索、定位、筛选与匹配,并将研究的成果运用到省略语篇的翻译教学。主要研究以下几个问题：1)省略的本质；2)省略的原则；3)省略认知研究的理论基础；4)省略的范畴化与非范畴化；5)省略的识解；6)省略语篇的翻译教学。
通过分析与研究,本论文获得以下主要发现：1)从认知语言学的角度分析,省略是一种信息突显；2)省略与视角密切相关,省略的非范畴化具有普遍性；3)省略是一种心理预设,省略语篇在交际中获得成功,取决于发话者与受话者背景知识的成功对接；4)省略是一种语义空位；5)空位语义具有或然性；6)补译是实现汉英文本等效转换的重要途径。
全文由7章组成：
第1章为导论。简要阐释省略的概念、特点、判断标准及在语篇中的地位等,并对国内外省略研究现状进行述评,阐述本文的研究思路和结构。
第2章讨论省略的原则：1)信息有效性编码原则。强调在编码过程中,省略的运用能使语言精炼,简洁高效；2)省力原则。交际过程中,无论是发话者和受话者,都不但希望交际成功,而且还希望尽量缩小为话语所付出的努力；3)合作原则。在运用省略语篇的交际中,发话者必须充分考虑受话者的知识储备和语境因素；4)关联原则。论述正确理解省略语篇时,必须通过话语和语境的关联性进行推理,以找出话题与语境的最佳关联,以准确填补语义空位。
第3章分析省略的认知语言学研究的理论基础。讨论了1)省略的生理学基础——大脑神经网络；2)省略的心理学基础——联结主义网络,阐述的是形式神经元,形式神经元的相互联结通过输入权值,当权植总和大于阀值时,神经元被激活,实现联结功能；3)省略的语言学基础——语义场与语义联想场词汇网络,阐述了词汇之间的语义联系,这种语义关系是产生语义联想的基础,联想能够实现语篇的联结。省略的生理学基础、心理学基础和语言学基础形成了省略理解的语义联想循环模式,即从“大脑神经网络”到“联结主义”,再到“语义场和语义联想场”。该模式形成了省略的认知语言学研究的理论基础。
第4章讨论省略的范畴化与非范畴化问题。省略的范畴化与非范畴化的研究,对强势省略和弱势省略的理解和划分提供了理论支持。省略的范畴化研究为强势省略与弱势省略的划分提供了根据；省略的非范畴化研究找到了弱势省略演变的渊源。省略的范畴化研究表明,省略这一范畴具有动态性和连续性,是处在一连续统中。省略只有典型性和非典型性之分。典型性省略的空位语义能够很快从言内语义网络和表达结构上搜索和定位,而非典型性的省略只能从言外背景知识中去联想和推定。典型性的省略是强势省略,非典型性省略是弱势省略,它们具有家族相似性。省略的非范畴化研究论述了省略的模糊性是非范畴化的前提,省略的联想性是非范畴化的起点。
第5章探讨省略的识解。运用识解理论中的突显和视角,对省略语篇进行解读。在省略语篇的解读中,受话者不断地调整自己的识解方法,选择不同的视角,采用不同的认知参照点,通过一定的心理路径,搜索语篇中存在的空位语义,找出恰当和自然的意义单位来填补语义空位,从而保障语篇的衔接与连贯。从视角与突显等观点出发来识解省略,符合人们的认知习惯。人们在一个熟知的背景下分析省略的语义空位时,注意到的是只有新信息才会着意突出,已知信息已经潜藏在人们的认知模式里,在省略语篇中作为背景,被安排在语义空位上,这就是省略产生的原因。
第6章研究省略语篇的翻译教学。本章运用理想认知模式理论来指导省略语篇中空位语义的转换。理想认知模式理论的运用可以促进语篇的整体理解,促进空位语义中信息的搜索、定位、筛选和匹配等程序的处理。在空位语义的转换中,施动共喻、受动共喻、行为共喻、属性共喻和结构共喻等空位上的语义,都能够以理想认知模式理论为指导,进行一系列认知层面的操作。在省略语篇的翻译教学中,希望教师在以下四个方面予以注意：1)熟悉大脑工作原理,认识神经元的加权学习过程就是提高权值的过程。在教学过程中,教师应鼓励学生掌握基础知识,提高语义联想技能,为在省略语篇的识解过程中快速激活神经元,增进空位语义理解,成功转换省略语篇打下基础；2)在建立语篇省略图式方面,教师应指导学生拓宽知识面,认真对待文化语境中产生的空位语义。因为这类省略是以一定的文化背景、思维方式、行为方式以及价值观念等为基础的,是民族文化的一部分；3)教师应指导学生加强英汉两种语言省略形式的对比研究,如汉语中的施动共喻,以及英语中的富有形态变化的谓语动词等的省略,它们的省略频率之高都较为突出,对这些省略特点应予以关注；4)教师应对汉英思维模式进行探讨,指导学生分析英汉两个民族在认知模式上的异同。
第7章为结论与讨论。归纳了论文的主要发现和不足之处。在此基础上,指出了在省略语篇的翻译教学中应侧重思考的几个问题,并对未来研究提出了建议。
Ellipsis is ubiquitous in natural language. The study of ellipsis has a long history in the philosophy of language, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, rhetoric, psychology, etc. Ellipsis plays different functions in different texts, such as grammatical function, rhetorical function, cohesive function, etc. The study of ellipsis has become a big problem for the teachers and students for a long time, especially in the teaching of translation of week ellipsis. It is under the influence of traditional linguistic study, the interpretation of ellipsis has become one-sided, people stick to the model of one-to-one semantic gap filling and fail to set up a convincing scientific classification system by which the teaching in translation of ellipsis in the texts can be guided.
The cognitive linguistic research on ellipsis has suggested that:1) the nature of ellipsis is the salience of new information. According to the theory of figure-ground, the known information is viewed as ground and the new information as figure, and in this way known information is omitted and new information is highlighted; 2) ellipsis is closely related to perspective, the decategorization of ellipsis is ubiquitous; 3) the presupposition of ellipsis is the docking of background knowledge between the speaker and the hearer; 4) ideal cognitive models(ICMs) are the theoretical bases of meanings in the gap in the process of searching, locating, filtering and matching.
With the construal theory in cognitive linguistics as the theoretical ground the present dissertation attempts to analyse the text of ellipsis and its searching, locating, filtering and matching location of the meanings in the gap, and puts the achievements of the research into the teaching of ellipsis text translation. The questions will be discussed as follows:1) the nature of ellipsis; 2) the principles of ellipsis; 3) the theoretical basis of the cognitive study of ellipsis; 4) the categorization and decategorization of ellipsis; 5) the construal of ellipsis; 6) the teaching in translation of the ellipsis text.
With the careful study we came up with the following findings:1) with the view of cognitive linguistics ellipsis is the salience of new information; 2) elipsis is closely related to perspective, the decategorization of ellipsis is ubiquitous; 3) ellipsis is presupposition. The success of ellipsis in communication is decided by the successful docking of background knowledge between the speaker and the hearer; 4) ellipsis is a semantic gap; 5) meanings in the gap have got the nature of probability; 6) adding translation is an important way in the realization of equivalent translation between Chinese and English ellipsis in the texts.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters:
Chapter 1 serves as the introduction. In this chapter, the author briefly discusses the notion, feature, criterion and position of ellipsis, the present research at home and abroard, and the research design and the structure of this dissertation.
Chapter 2 deals with the principles of ellipsis:1) coding principle of information validity. It emphasizes conciseness and efficiency of words when ellipsis is used in the course of coding; 2) the principle of least effort. In the communication both the speaker and the hearer hopes not only the success of communication but also the least effort in coding; 3) cooperative principle. According to the principle the speaker should consider the knowledge reserve of the hearer and the context carefully in the communication by using ellipsis in the texts; 4) the principle of relevance. It deals with the reasoning according to the relevance of context in order to find the best relevance between the topic and the context and fill the semantic gap correctly.
Chapter 3 comments on the theoretical basis of cognitive linguistics in the study of ellipsis:1) the basis of physiology. It means the neural network of human brains; 2) the basis of psychology. It refers to the network of collectionism, and the function of form neurons. Form neurons connect each other through the imput of weight. When the sum of weight is greater than the threshold the neuron is activated, thus comes the connection; 3) the basis of linguistics, i.e. the lexcical network in the semantic field and semantic associative field. It deals with the semantic relations between words and phrases.The semantic relations are the bases of semantic association which can make a text. The basis of physiology, psychology and linguistics forms a semantic associative cyclic model, namely, the neural network→collectionism→the semantic field and semantic associative field. The model is the theoretical basis of the cognitive study of ellipsis.
Chapter 4 discusses the categorization and decategorization of ellipsis.The study can give a strong support to the classification of ellipsis.Categorization serves as the theoretical basis of strong and weak ellipsis and decategorization as the change sources of weak ellipsis. The study of categorization shows that ellipsis has the features of changeability and continuity, and it is in the state of continuum. Ellipsis has the difference of typicality and atypicality. The meanings in the gap of typical ellipsis can be searched and located rapidly from the semantic network and grammatical structure of the words exchanged directly, nevertheless, the atypical ellipsis can only be associated and reasoned from the context. Typical ellipsis is called strong ellipsis and atypical ellipsis weak ellipsis.They have the family resemblance. The study of decategorization shows that ambiguity of ellipsis is the premise of decategorization, and association is its starting point.
Chapter 5 deals with the construal of ellipsis. Salience and perspective can help interpret the text of ellipsis.The hearer should choose different ways of construal, perspective and reference points of cognition, try to search and locate the meanings in the gap through some psychological paths, and find some units of natural meanings to fill the gap so that cohesion and coherence of the the ellipsis text can be achieved. It meets people's custom to construal the ellipsis in the text in the view of salience and perspective. In a familiar context people only pay attention to the salience of new information when analyzing the semantic gaps of ellipsis because the known information in the gaps has been put into people's cognitive models and used as ground in the text of ellipsis. That is the reason why ellipsis has come into being.
Chapter 6 is on the teaching of ellipsis translation in the text. In this chapter transformation of meanings in the gap has been discussed in the theory of ICMs. The application of ICMs can help to interpret, search, locate, filter and match the information in the text of ellipsis. ICMs can also help to fill the semantic gap in the view of cognition, such as in the transformation of subject awareness, object awareness, action awareness, character awareness, and structure awareness. In the teaching of translating the ellipsis text, teachers should pay attention to the four points mentioned below:1) to know how the brain works, and the process of weight adding study of neurons is the one that weight is increased. In the course of teaching teachers should encourage their students to master basic knowledge and improve the semantic associative skills. Teachers should also help the students to understand the meanings in the gap, activate the neurons quickly in the construal of ellipsis texts and lay a good foundation in the translation in this respect; 2) to create schema teachers should help their students to broaden their knowledge, and pay attention to the meanings in the gap in the context of culture which is based on certain culture, the way of thought and behaviour, and values etc.; 3) to teach the students to make a contrastive study about the texts of ellipsis, such as subject awareness in Chinese, and the predicate verb which is very rich in inflective forms in English because frequency of ellipsis of those elements is very high; 4) to make a research about the models of thought between English and Chinese. Teachers should teach their students the similarities and differences about the models of cognition between the two nationalities.
Chapter 7 serves as the conclusion and discussion. The major findings and limitations are summarized, and several points in the translation of ellipsis in the texts are mentioned, and suggestions for future research are offered as well.
省略的认知语言学研究表明：1)省略的本质是新信息的突显。按照图形—背景理论,已知信息被视为背景,新信息被视为图形,已知信息当作背景被省略,新信息当作图形被突显；2)省略与视角密切相关,省略的非范畴化具有普遍性；3)省略的心理预设为发话者与受话者背景知识的对接；4)理想认知模式(ICMs)是空位语义搜索、定位、筛选与匹配的理论依据。
本论文运用认知语言学关于识解的观点来解读省略语篇,完成省略语篇中空位语义的搜索、定位、筛选与匹配,并将研究的成果运用到省略语篇的翻译教学。主要研究以下几个问题：1)省略的本质；2)省略的原则；3)省略认知研究的理论基础；4)省略的范畴化与非范畴化；5)省略的识解；6)省略语篇的翻译教学。
通过分析与研究,本论文获得以下主要发现：1)从认知语言学的角度分析,省略是一种信息突显；2)省略与视角密切相关,省略的非范畴化具有普遍性；3)省略是一种心理预设,省略语篇在交际中获得成功,取决于发话者与受话者背景知识的成功对接；4)省略是一种语义空位；5)空位语义具有或然性；6)补译是实现汉英文本等效转换的重要途径。
全文由7章组成：
第1章为导论。简要阐释省略的概念、特点、判断标准及在语篇中的地位等,并对国内外省略研究现状进行述评,阐述本文的研究思路和结构。
第2章讨论省略的原则：1)信息有效性编码原则。强调在编码过程中,省略的运用能使语言精炼,简洁高效；2)省力原则。交际过程中,无论是发话者和受话者,都不但希望交际成功,而且还希望尽量缩小为话语所付出的努力；3)合作原则。在运用省略语篇的交际中,发话者必须充分考虑受话者的知识储备和语境因素；4)关联原则。论述正确理解省略语篇时,必须通过话语和语境的关联性进行推理,以找出话题与语境的最佳关联,以准确填补语义空位。
第3章分析省略的认知语言学研究的理论基础。讨论了1)省略的生理学基础——大脑神经网络；2)省略的心理学基础——联结主义网络,阐述的是形式神经元,形式神经元的相互联结通过输入权值,当权植总和大于阀值时,神经元被激活,实现联结功能；3)省略的语言学基础——语义场与语义联想场词汇网络,阐述了词汇之间的语义联系,这种语义关系是产生语义联想的基础,联想能够实现语篇的联结。省略的生理学基础、心理学基础和语言学基础形成了省略理解的语义联想循环模式,即从“大脑神经网络”到“联结主义”,再到“语义场和语义联想场”。该模式形成了省略的认知语言学研究的理论基础。
第4章讨论省略的范畴化与非范畴化问题。省略的范畴化与非范畴化的研究,对强势省略和弱势省略的理解和划分提供了理论支持。省略的范畴化研究为强势省略与弱势省略的划分提供了根据；省略的非范畴化研究找到了弱势省略演变的渊源。省略的范畴化研究表明,省略这一范畴具有动态性和连续性,是处在一连续统中。省略只有典型性和非典型性之分。典型性省略的空位语义能够很快从言内语义网络和表达结构上搜索和定位,而非典型性的省略只能从言外背景知识中去联想和推定。典型性的省略是强势省略,非典型性省略是弱势省略,它们具有家族相似性。省略的非范畴化研究论述了省略的模糊性是非范畴化的前提,省略的联想性是非范畴化的起点。
第5章探讨省略的识解。运用识解理论中的突显和视角,对省略语篇进行解读。在省略语篇的解读中,受话者不断地调整自己的识解方法,选择不同的视角,采用不同的认知参照点,通过一定的心理路径,搜索语篇中存在的空位语义,找出恰当和自然的意义单位来填补语义空位,从而保障语篇的衔接与连贯。从视角与突显等观点出发来识解省略,符合人们的认知习惯。人们在一个熟知的背景下分析省略的语义空位时,注意到的是只有新信息才会着意突出,已知信息已经潜藏在人们的认知模式里,在省略语篇中作为背景,被安排在语义空位上,这就是省略产生的原因。
第6章研究省略语篇的翻译教学。本章运用理想认知模式理论来指导省略语篇中空位语义的转换。理想认知模式理论的运用可以促进语篇的整体理解,促进空位语义中信息的搜索、定位、筛选和匹配等程序的处理。在空位语义的转换中,施动共喻、受动共喻、行为共喻、属性共喻和结构共喻等空位上的语义,都能够以理想认知模式理论为指导,进行一系列认知层面的操作。在省略语篇的翻译教学中,希望教师在以下四个方面予以注意：1)熟悉大脑工作原理,认识神经元的加权学习过程就是提高权值的过程。在教学过程中,教师应鼓励学生掌握基础知识,提高语义联想技能,为在省略语篇的识解过程中快速激活神经元,增进空位语义理解,成功转换省略语篇打下基础；2)在建立语篇省略图式方面,教师应指导学生拓宽知识面,认真对待文化语境中产生的空位语义。因为这类省略是以一定的文化背景、思维方式、行为方式以及价值观念等为基础的,是民族文化的一部分；3)教师应指导学生加强英汉两种语言省略形式的对比研究,如汉语中的施动共喻,以及英语中的富有形态变化的谓语动词等的省略,它们的省略频率之高都较为突出,对这些省略特点应予以关注；4)教师应对汉英思维模式进行探讨,指导学生分析英汉两个民族在认知模式上的异同。
第7章为结论与讨论。归纳了论文的主要发现和不足之处。在此基础上,指出了在省略语篇的翻译教学中应侧重思考的几个问题,并对未来研究提出了建议。
Ellipsis is ubiquitous in natural language. The study of ellipsis has a long history in the philosophy of language, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, rhetoric, psychology, etc. Ellipsis plays different functions in different texts, such as grammatical function, rhetorical function, cohesive function, etc. The study of ellipsis has become a big problem for the teachers and students for a long time, especially in the teaching of translation of week ellipsis. It is under the influence of traditional linguistic study, the interpretation of ellipsis has become one-sided, people stick to the model of one-to-one semantic gap filling and fail to set up a convincing scientific classification system by which the teaching in translation of ellipsis in the texts can be guided.
The cognitive linguistic research on ellipsis has suggested that:1) the nature of ellipsis is the salience of new information. According to the theory of figure-ground, the known information is viewed as ground and the new information as figure, and in this way known information is omitted and new information is highlighted; 2) ellipsis is closely related to perspective, the decategorization of ellipsis is ubiquitous; 3) the presupposition of ellipsis is the docking of background knowledge between the speaker and the hearer; 4) ideal cognitive models(ICMs) are the theoretical bases of meanings in the gap in the process of searching, locating, filtering and matching.
With the construal theory in cognitive linguistics as the theoretical ground the present dissertation attempts to analyse the text of ellipsis and its searching, locating, filtering and matching location of the meanings in the gap, and puts the achievements of the research into the teaching of ellipsis text translation. The questions will be discussed as follows:1) the nature of ellipsis; 2) the principles of ellipsis; 3) the theoretical basis of the cognitive study of ellipsis; 4) the categorization and decategorization of ellipsis; 5) the construal of ellipsis; 6) the teaching in translation of the ellipsis text.
With the careful study we came up with the following findings:1) with the view of cognitive linguistics ellipsis is the salience of new information; 2) elipsis is closely related to perspective, the decategorization of ellipsis is ubiquitous; 3) ellipsis is presupposition. The success of ellipsis in communication is decided by the successful docking of background knowledge between the speaker and the hearer; 4) ellipsis is a semantic gap; 5) meanings in the gap have got the nature of probability; 6) adding translation is an important way in the realization of equivalent translation between Chinese and English ellipsis in the texts.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters:
Chapter 1 serves as the introduction. In this chapter, the author briefly discusses the notion, feature, criterion and position of ellipsis, the present research at home and abroard, and the research design and the structure of this dissertation.
Chapter 2 deals with the principles of ellipsis:1) coding principle of information validity. It emphasizes conciseness and efficiency of words when ellipsis is used in the course of coding; 2) the principle of least effort. In the communication both the speaker and the hearer hopes not only the success of communication but also the least effort in coding; 3) cooperative principle. According to the principle the speaker should consider the knowledge reserve of the hearer and the context carefully in the communication by using ellipsis in the texts; 4) the principle of relevance. It deals with the reasoning according to the relevance of context in order to find the best relevance between the topic and the context and fill the semantic gap correctly.
Chapter 3 comments on the theoretical basis of cognitive linguistics in the study of ellipsis:1) the basis of physiology. It means the neural network of human brains; 2) the basis of psychology. It refers to the network of collectionism, and the function of form neurons. Form neurons connect each other through the imput of weight. When the sum of weight is greater than the threshold the neuron is activated, thus comes the connection; 3) the basis of linguistics, i.e. the lexcical network in the semantic field and semantic associative field. It deals with the semantic relations between words and phrases.The semantic relations are the bases of semantic association which can make a text. The basis of physiology, psychology and linguistics forms a semantic associative cyclic model, namely, the neural network→collectionism→the semantic field and semantic associative field. The model is the theoretical basis of the cognitive study of ellipsis.
Chapter 4 discusses the categorization and decategorization of ellipsis.The study can give a strong support to the classification of ellipsis.Categorization serves as the theoretical basis of strong and weak ellipsis and decategorization as the change sources of weak ellipsis. The study of categorization shows that ellipsis has the features of changeability and continuity, and it is in the state of continuum. Ellipsis has the difference of typicality and atypicality. The meanings in the gap of typical ellipsis can be searched and located rapidly from the semantic network and grammatical structure of the words exchanged directly, nevertheless, the atypical ellipsis can only be associated and reasoned from the context. Typical ellipsis is called strong ellipsis and atypical ellipsis weak ellipsis.They have the family resemblance. The study of decategorization shows that ambiguity of ellipsis is the premise of decategorization, and association is its starting point.
Chapter 5 deals with the construal of ellipsis. Salience and perspective can help interpret the text of ellipsis.The hearer should choose different ways of construal, perspective and reference points of cognition, try to search and locate the meanings in the gap through some psychological paths, and find some units of natural meanings to fill the gap so that cohesion and coherence of the the ellipsis text can be achieved. It meets people's custom to construal the ellipsis in the text in the view of salience and perspective. In a familiar context people only pay attention to the salience of new information when analyzing the semantic gaps of ellipsis because the known information in the gaps has been put into people's cognitive models and used as ground in the text of ellipsis. That is the reason why ellipsis has come into being.
Chapter 6 is on the teaching of ellipsis translation in the text. In this chapter transformation of meanings in the gap has been discussed in the theory of ICMs. The application of ICMs can help to interpret, search, locate, filter and match the information in the text of ellipsis. ICMs can also help to fill the semantic gap in the view of cognition, such as in the transformation of subject awareness, object awareness, action awareness, character awareness, and structure awareness. In the teaching of translating the ellipsis text, teachers should pay attention to the four points mentioned below:1) to know how the brain works, and the process of weight adding study of neurons is the one that weight is increased. In the course of teaching teachers should encourage their students to master basic knowledge and improve the semantic associative skills. Teachers should also help the students to understand the meanings in the gap, activate the neurons quickly in the construal of ellipsis texts and lay a good foundation in the translation in this respect; 2) to create schema teachers should help their students to broaden their knowledge, and pay attention to the meanings in the gap in the context of culture which is based on certain culture, the way of thought and behaviour, and values etc.; 3) to teach the students to make a contrastive study about the texts of ellipsis, such as subject awareness in Chinese, and the predicate verb which is very rich in inflective forms in English because frequency of ellipsis of those elements is very high; 4) to make a research about the models of thought between English and Chinese. Teachers should teach their students the similarities and differences about the models of cognition between the two nationalities.
Chapter 7 serves as the conclusion and discussion. The major findings and limitations are summarized, and several points in the translation of ellipsis in the texts are mentioned, and suggestions for future research are offered as well.
引文
Achard, M.& S. Niemeier.2004. Introduction [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruy ter.
Aitchison, J.1987. Words in the Mind:an Introduction to the Mental Lexicon [M]. Oxford and New York:Basil Blackwell.
Austin, J.1961. The meaning of a word [A]. In J.O. Urmson& G. J. Warnock(eds.). Philosophical Papers [C]. Oxford:Clarendon. Barcelona, A.2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor [A]. In A. Barcelona(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Baugh, A. C.& T. Cable.1993. A History of the English Language [M]. London: Routledge.
Bierwisch, M.& R. Schreuder.1992. From concepts to lexical items [J]. Cognition.
Blank, A.1999. Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch(eds.). Historical Semantics and cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruy ter.
Boers, F& M. Dwmecheleer.1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions [J]. English Language Teaching Journal.
Boers, F.2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention [J]. Applied Linguistics.
Boers, F., M. Demecheleer& J. Eyckmans.2004. Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms [J]. European Journal of English Studies.
Boers, F.2004. Expanding learners'vocabulary through metaphor awareness:what expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruy ter.
Breal, M.1991. The history of words [A]. In G. Wolf (ed.& trans.). The Beginning of Semantics:Essays, Lectures and Reviews [C]. London:Duckworth.
Breal, M.1964. Semantics:Studies in the Science of Meaning [M]. Trans. by Mrs. Henry Cust. New York:Dover.
Brisard, F., G.. V. Rillaer& S. Dominiek.2001. Processing polysemous, homonymous, and vague adjectives [A]. In H. Cuyckens& B. Zawada(eds.). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, G& Yule, G..1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Brugman, C.1981. Story of over. M. A. Thesis. University of Califonia. Published as The Story of Over:Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon [M].1989. New York:Garland.
Cairns, H. S.& J. Kamerman.1975. Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension [J]. Journal of Verb Learning and Verbal Behavior
Campell, L.1998. Historical Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Caramazza, A& E. Grober.1976. Polysemy and the structure of subjective lexicon [A]. In C. Rameh(ed.). Semantics:Theory and Application [C]. Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Carroll, D.2000. Psychology of Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.
Carrell P. L& Eisterhold J. C.1983. Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [J]. TESOL QUARTERLY.
Carter, R. A.& M. J. McCarthy.1988. Vocabulary and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longman.
Chern, Chiou-Lan.1993. Chinese students'word-solving strategies in reading in English [A]. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes& J. Coady(eds.). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning [C]. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Clark, E. V.& H. H. Clark.1979. When nouns surface as verbs [J]. Language.
Coady, J.& T. Huckin.1997. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F.1975. A Spreaading Activation Theory of Semantic Process [J]. Psychological Review.
Cook, G.1989. Discourse [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, G.1994. Discourse and Literature [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Csabi, S.2004. A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
David W. Carroll.2000. Psychology of Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press& Thomson Learning Asia.
De Beaugrande, R.& Dressler, W. U.1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor.1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eggins, S.1994. An Introduction to Functional Systemic Linguistics [M]. London:Pinter Publishers.
Ellis, R.1994. The Study of Second Language acquisition [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Emmontt, C.1999. Embodied in a constructed world:Narrative processing, knowledge representation, and indirected anaphora [A]. In Karen van Hoek et al (eds.). Discourse Studies in a Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Pheladelphia:John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis [A]. In R. J. Jarvella& W. Klein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester:John Wiley.
Fillmore, C. J.& B. T. S. Atkins.2000. Describing polysemy:The case of'crawl'[A].
In Y. Ravin& C. Leacock(eds.). Polysemy:Theoretical and Computational Approaches [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
G. Brown& G. Yule.1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J. P.1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Reseach Press.
Geeraerts, D.1993. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries [J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Geeraerts, D. et al 1994. Structure of Lexical Variation:Meaning, Naming and Context. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1999. Diachronic prototype semantics:A digest [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geoff Thompson.2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Gibbs, R. W.& J. O'Brien.1990. Idioms and mental imagery:The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning [J]. Cognition.
Grice, H. P.1989. Studies on the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harward University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. Language as Social Semiotic [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Ruqaiya Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan.1985. Language, Context and Text:Aspects of Language as a socio-Semantic Perspective [M]. Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Harmer, J.1990. The Practice of English Language Teaching [M]. London:Longman.
Heine, B., U. Claudi& F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Hoey, M.1983. On the Surface of Discourse [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M.1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J.& E. C. Traugott.1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. S.1985. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jacob L. Mey.2001. An introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jhon B. Best,黄希庭等译.2000. Cognitive Psychology [M]. Beijing:China Light Industry Press.
John Lyons.2000. Linguistics Semantics:An Introduction [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imangination, and Reason [M], Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Kathleen M. Galotti,吴国宏等译.2005. Cognitive Psychology [M]. Xi'an:Shaixi Normal University Press.
Kecskes, I.2006. Contextual meaning and word meaning [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages.
Kovecses, Z.1990. Emotion Concepts [M]. New York:Springer Verlag.
Kovecses, Z.2001. A cognitive linguistic view of learning idoms in an FLT context [A]. In M. Putz, N. Niemeier& R. Dirven(eds.). Applied cognitive linguistics II:Language Pedagogy [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. II Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Langacker, R. W.2000. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G.1981. Semantic [M]. Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd..
Lobeck, A.1995. Ellipsis:Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification [M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Ludtke, H.1999. Diachronic semantics:towards a unified theory of language change? [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, J.1977. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B.1923. The Problem of Meaning in PrimitiveLanguages [C]. London: Routledge.
Martinet A.1962. A Functional View of Language [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text [M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
McCarthy, M.2002. Discourse, Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Mish, F. C.1989. Webster's Word History [M]. Massachussets:Merriam-Webster Inc. Publishers.
Mondada, Lorenza.1996. How Space Structures Discourse. In M. Putz,& R. Dirven(eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mondria, J. A.& M.. Wit-de Boer.1991. The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language [J]. Applied Linguistics.
Morris, C. W.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Newell, A.& Simon, H. A.1976. Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry:Symbols and Search [J]. Communications of the ACM (19).
Norrick, N.1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Phillips, M.1985. Aspects of Text Structure:An Investigation of the Lexical Organization of Text [M]. North-Holand.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quine, W. V.1960. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quirk et al.1972. A Grammar of Contemprary English [M]. London:Longman Group Ltd.
Quirk, R..1985. The Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman Group Ltd. Press.
Richard. J. C. and Platt. J., Platt. H..1998. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics [Z]. Hongkong:Adison Longman China Limited.
Richards, I. A.1965. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology.
Rosch, E. H.1978. Principles of categorization [A]. In E. H. Rosch& B. Lloyd(eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. Hilldale, N. J.:Erlbaum.
Rosch, E. H.& C. B. Mervis.1975. Family resemblances:studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive Psycholog.
Rumelhart, D. E.1980. Schemata:the building blocks of cognition [C]. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, ed by R. J. Sp iro, B. C. Bruce,&W. F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schlesinger, I. M.1979. Cognitive structures and semantic deep structures:The case of the instrumental [J]. Journal of Linguistics.
Schmid, Hars-Jorg.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns [A]. In Karen Van Hoek et al (eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Philodelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1986/1995. Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon [A]. In P. Carruthers& J. Boucher(eds.). Thought and Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
T. Bloor& M. Bloor.2001. The Functional Analysis of English:A Hallidayan Approach [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Talmy, Leolard.2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1:Concept Structuring Systems [M] Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Taylor, J.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.1999. Cognitive semantics and stuctural semantics [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch(eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J.2008. Prototypes in cognitive linguistics [A]. In P. Robinson& N. C. Ellis(eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Routledge.
Traugott, E. C.1995. Subjectification in grammticalization [A]. In D. Stein& S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tversky, Barbara.1996. Special perspective in descriptions. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill F. Garrett(eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge/London MIT Press.
Tyler, A.2008. Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction [A]. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguitics and Second Language Acquistion [C]. New York:Routledge.
Tyler, A& V. Evans.2004. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:The case of over [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ullmann, S.1957. The Principles of Semantics:A Linguistic Approach to Meaning [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Ungerer and H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Violi, P.2000. Prototypicality, typicality, and context [A]. In L. Albertazzi (ed.). Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Widdowson, H. G.1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L.1953. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Tranlated by Anscombe, G. E. M. Newyork:MacMillan.
Zipf, G. K.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge, Ma.: Addison-wesley.
车若水,1965,脚气集[M]。台北：艺文印书馆。
程琪龙,2001,认知语言学概论--语言的神经认知基础[M]。北京：外语教学与研究 出版社。
陈平,1994,现代汉语空语类研究[M]。济南：山东教育出版社。
陈伟英,2005,省略与省力[J]。浙江大学学报(6)。
陈伟英,2006,唐诗主语省略英译补出现象[J]。浙江大学学报(6)。
陈勇,1999,省略的语用研究[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(5)。
戴明远,2003,基础信息论[M]。上海：同济大学出版社。
杜·舒尔茨,1981,现代心理学史[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
范开泰,1990,省略、隐含、暗示[J]。语言教学与研究(2)。
范开泰,1993,语法分析的三个平面[J]。语言教学与研究(3)。
范开泰、张亚军,2000,现代汉语语法分析[M]。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
范晓,1996,三个平面的语法观[M]。北京：北京语言学出版社。
范晓,1998,汉语的句子类型[M]。太原：书海出版社。
费尔迪南·德·索绪尔著；高名凯译,1996,普通语言学教程[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
辜正坤,1998,中西诗鉴赏与翻译[M]。长沙：湖南人民出版社。
桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
韩景泉,1997,空语类理论与汉语空位宾语[J]。国外语言学(4)。
何自然、冉永平,2001,语用与认知[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
何自然、冉永平,2002,语用学概论[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
洪堡特,K.L.,1997,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。北京：商务印书馆。
胡守仁等,1993,神经网络导论[M]。长沙：国防科技大学出版社。
胡裕树,1992,语法研究的三个平面[J]。语文学习(11)。
胡裕树,1995,现代汉语[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
胡裕树、范晓,1987,试论语法研究的三个平面[J]。新疆师大学报(2)。
胡壮麟,1994,语篇的衔接与连贯[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2004,认知隐喻学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
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。
黄关福,1986,英语省略法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
黄国文,1988,语篇分析概要[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
黄南松,1997,省略和语篇[J]。汉语研究(1)。
贾彦德,1999,汉语语义学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
姜望琪,2005,汉语的“句子”与英语的sentence[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(1)。
匡芳涛、文旭,2003,图形--背景的现实化[J]。外国语(4)。
黎锦熙,1998,新著国语文法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
李福印,2008,认知语言学概论[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李力,1994,图式在英语阅读教学中的作用[J]。西南师范大学学报(2)。
李森,2005,现代教学论纲要[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
李子云,1991,汉语句法规则[M]。合肥：安徽教育出版社。
廖朝亭,2008,《马氏文通》省略研究的历史意义[J]。贵州教育学院学报(4)。
林纪诚,1986,英语语篇中词汇衔接手段试探[J]。外国语(5)。
刘宓庆,2005,新编当代翻译理论[M]。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘绍龙,2007,翻译心理学[M]。武汉：武汉大学出版社。
刘正光,2006,语言非范畴化[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
罗新璋,1984,翻译论集[C]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕冀平,2002,假设和条件的表达[A]。吕冀平汉语论集[C]。北京：社会科学文献出版社。
吕叔湘,1942,中国文法要略[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
马建忠,1898,马氏文通[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
苗兴伟,2003,语篇的信息连贯[J]。外语教学(2)。
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。
彭聃龄、谭力海,1991,语言心理学[M]。北京：北京师范大学出版社。
彭宣维,2000,英汉语篇综合对比[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
荣晶,1989,汉语省略、隐含和空语类的区别[J]。新疆大学学报(4)。
申小龙,1988,中国句型文化[M]。长春：东北师范大学出版社。
施关淦,1993,再论语法研究中的三个平面[J]。汉语学习(2)。
束定芳,2000,现代语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
舒济,2004,老舍散文选集[M]。天津：百花文艺出版社。
孙家富、张广明,1983,文学词典[M]。武汉：湖北人民出版社。
孙明,2007,古汉语省略的分类[J]。东岳论丛(6)。
田然,2003,现代汉语叙事语篇中NP的省略[J]。汉语学习(6)。
王初明,1990,应用心理语言学[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
王力,1980,汉语史稿[M]。上海：中华书局。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
王脉,2007,英汉空语类的句法分布研究[J]。宁波教育学院学报(1)。
王维贤,1997,现代汉语语法理论研究[M]。北京：语文出版社。
王文斌、姚俊,2004,汉英隐语习语ICM和CB的认知对比考察[J]。外语与外语教学(5)。
王寅,2006,认知语法概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
文旭,1999,国外认知语言学研究综观[J]。外国语(1)。
文旭,2003,词汇空缺的发现程序和认知理据[J]。四川外语学院学报(3)。
文旭、匡方涛,2004,语言空间系统的认知阐释[J]。四川外语学院学报(3)。
夏日光、赵耿林,2006,语义联想省略的语篇探微[J]。长沙理工大学学报(5)。
邢公畹,1994,现代汉语教程[M]。天津：南丌大学出版社。
邢福义,1986,现代汉语[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
邢福义、汪国胜,2003,现代汉语[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
熊哲宏,2002,认知科学导论[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1996,信息状态研究[J]。现代外语(2)。
许余龙,2002,对比语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
许渊冲,1992,中诗音韵探胜[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
杨伯峻、何乐士,2001,古汉语语法极其发展[M]。北京：语文出版社。
张德禄、刘汝山,2003,语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄、苗兴伟等,2005,功能语言学与外语教学[M]。北京：外语教育与研究出版社。
张今、张云清,1981,英汉比较语法纲要[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
张韵斐,1984,现代英语词汇学概论[M]。北京：北京师范大学出版社。
章振邦,2000,新编英语语法教程[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
赵耿林,2007,论会话语篇省略的理据[J]。韶关学院学报。
赵世举,1999,汉语省略句的判断标准问题[J]。中南民族学院学报(4)。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周国光,2005,语义场的结构和类型[J]。华南师范大学学报(1)。
朱德熙,1997,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱利,1991,治家格言 增广贤文 女儿经[M]。上海：上海古籍出版。
朱墨,2000,彼岸集[M]。西安：西安地图出版社。
朱永生,2002,英汉省略的语篇衔接功能对比[J]。山东外语教学(1)。
朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟,2001,英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
邹哲承,2002,从“成语的省略谈起”[J]。汉字文化(4)。
Aitchison, J.1987. Words in the Mind:an Introduction to the Mental Lexicon [M]. Oxford and New York:Basil Blackwell.
Austin, J.1961. The meaning of a word [A]. In J.O. Urmson& G. J. Warnock(eds.). Philosophical Papers [C]. Oxford:Clarendon. Barcelona, A.2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor [A]. In A. Barcelona(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Baugh, A. C.& T. Cable.1993. A History of the English Language [M]. London: Routledge.
Bierwisch, M.& R. Schreuder.1992. From concepts to lexical items [J]. Cognition.
Blank, A.1999. Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch(eds.). Historical Semantics and cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruy ter.
Boers, F& M. Dwmecheleer.1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions [J]. English Language Teaching Journal.
Boers, F.2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention [J]. Applied Linguistics.
Boers, F., M. Demecheleer& J. Eyckmans.2004. Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms [J]. European Journal of English Studies.
Boers, F.2004. Expanding learners'vocabulary through metaphor awareness:what expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruy ter.
Breal, M.1991. The history of words [A]. In G. Wolf (ed.& trans.). The Beginning of Semantics:Essays, Lectures and Reviews [C]. London:Duckworth.
Breal, M.1964. Semantics:Studies in the Science of Meaning [M]. Trans. by Mrs. Henry Cust. New York:Dover.
Brisard, F., G.. V. Rillaer& S. Dominiek.2001. Processing polysemous, homonymous, and vague adjectives [A]. In H. Cuyckens& B. Zawada(eds.). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, G& Yule, G..1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Brugman, C.1981. Story of over. M. A. Thesis. University of Califonia. Published as The Story of Over:Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon [M].1989. New York:Garland.
Cairns, H. S.& J. Kamerman.1975. Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension [J]. Journal of Verb Learning and Verbal Behavior
Campell, L.1998. Historical Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Caramazza, A& E. Grober.1976. Polysemy and the structure of subjective lexicon [A]. In C. Rameh(ed.). Semantics:Theory and Application [C]. Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Carroll, D.2000. Psychology of Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.
Carrell P. L& Eisterhold J. C.1983. Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [J]. TESOL QUARTERLY.
Carter, R. A.& M. J. McCarthy.1988. Vocabulary and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longman.
Chern, Chiou-Lan.1993. Chinese students'word-solving strategies in reading in English [A]. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes& J. Coady(eds.). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning [C]. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Clark, E. V.& H. H. Clark.1979. When nouns surface as verbs [J]. Language.
Coady, J.& T. Huckin.1997. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F.1975. A Spreaading Activation Theory of Semantic Process [J]. Psychological Review.
Cook, G.1989. Discourse [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, G.1994. Discourse and Literature [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Csabi, S.2004. A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
David W. Carroll.2000. Psychology of Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press& Thomson Learning Asia.
De Beaugrande, R.& Dressler, W. U.1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor.1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eggins, S.1994. An Introduction to Functional Systemic Linguistics [M]. London:Pinter Publishers.
Ellis, R.1994. The Study of Second Language acquisition [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Emmontt, C.1999. Embodied in a constructed world:Narrative processing, knowledge representation, and indirected anaphora [A]. In Karen van Hoek et al (eds.). Discourse Studies in a Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Pheladelphia:John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis [A]. In R. J. Jarvella& W. Klein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester:John Wiley.
Fillmore, C. J.& B. T. S. Atkins.2000. Describing polysemy:The case of'crawl'[A].
In Y. Ravin& C. Leacock(eds.). Polysemy:Theoretical and Computational Approaches [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
G. Brown& G. Yule.1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J. P.1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing:Foreign Languages Teaching and Reseach Press.
Geeraerts, D.1993. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries [J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Geeraerts, D. et al 1994. Structure of Lexical Variation:Meaning, Naming and Context. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1999. Diachronic prototype semantics:A digest [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geoff Thompson.2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Gibbs, R. W.& J. O'Brien.1990. Idioms and mental imagery:The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning [J]. Cognition.
Grice, H. P.1989. Studies on the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harward University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition) [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. Language as Social Semiotic [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Ruqaiya Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan.1985. Language, Context and Text:Aspects of Language as a socio-Semantic Perspective [M]. Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Harmer, J.1990. The Practice of English Language Teaching [M]. London:Longman.
Heine, B., U. Claudi& F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Hoey, M.1983. On the Surface of Discourse [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M.1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J.& E. C. Traugott.1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. S.1985. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jacob L. Mey.2001. An introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jhon B. Best,黄希庭等译.2000. Cognitive Psychology [M]. Beijing:China Light Industry Press.
John Lyons.2000. Linguistics Semantics:An Introduction [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imangination, and Reason [M], Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Kathleen M. Galotti,吴国宏等译.2005. Cognitive Psychology [M]. Xi'an:Shaixi Normal University Press.
Kecskes, I.2006. Contextual meaning and word meaning [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages.
Kovecses, Z.1990. Emotion Concepts [M]. New York:Springer Verlag.
Kovecses, Z.2001. A cognitive linguistic view of learning idoms in an FLT context [A]. In M. Putz, N. Niemeier& R. Dirven(eds.). Applied cognitive linguistics II:Language Pedagogy [C]. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. II Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Langacker, R. W.2000. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G.1981. Semantic [M]. Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd..
Lobeck, A.1995. Ellipsis:Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification [M]. London: Oxford University Press.
Ludtke, H.1999. Diachronic semantics:towards a unified theory of language change? [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, J.1977. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B.1923. The Problem of Meaning in PrimitiveLanguages [C]. London: Routledge.
Martinet A.1962. A Functional View of Language [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text [M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
McCarthy, M.2002. Discourse, Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Mish, F. C.1989. Webster's Word History [M]. Massachussets:Merriam-Webster Inc. Publishers.
Mondada, Lorenza.1996. How Space Structures Discourse. In M. Putz,& R. Dirven(eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mondria, J. A.& M.. Wit-de Boer.1991. The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language [J]. Applied Linguistics.
Morris, C. W.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Newell, A.& Simon, H. A.1976. Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry:Symbols and Search [J]. Communications of the ACM (19).
Norrick, N.1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Phillips, M.1985. Aspects of Text Structure:An Investigation of the Lexical Organization of Text [M]. North-Holand.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quine, W. V.1960. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quirk et al.1972. A Grammar of Contemprary English [M]. London:Longman Group Ltd.
Quirk, R..1985. The Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman Group Ltd. Press.
Richard. J. C. and Platt. J., Platt. H..1998. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics [Z]. Hongkong:Adison Longman China Limited.
Richards, I. A.1965. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology.
Rosch, E. H.1978. Principles of categorization [A]. In E. H. Rosch& B. Lloyd(eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. Hilldale, N. J.:Erlbaum.
Rosch, E. H.& C. B. Mervis.1975. Family resemblances:studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive Psycholog.
Rumelhart, D. E.1980. Schemata:the building blocks of cognition [C]. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, ed by R. J. Sp iro, B. C. Bruce,&W. F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schlesinger, I. M.1979. Cognitive structures and semantic deep structures:The case of the instrumental [J]. Journal of Linguistics.
Schmid, Hars-Jorg.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns [A]. In Karen Van Hoek et al (eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam/Philodelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1986/1995. Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon [A]. In P. Carruthers& J. Boucher(eds.). Thought and Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
T. Bloor& M. Bloor.2001. The Functional Analysis of English:A Hallidayan Approach [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Talmy, Leolard.2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1:Concept Structuring Systems [M] Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Taylor, J.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.1999. Cognitive semantics and stuctural semantics [A]. In A. Blank& P. Koch(eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J.2008. Prototypes in cognitive linguistics [A]. In P. Robinson& N. C. Ellis(eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Routledge.
Traugott, E. C.1995. Subjectification in grammticalization [A]. In D. Stein& S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tversky, Barbara.1996. Special perspective in descriptions. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill F. Garrett(eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge/London MIT Press.
Tyler, A.2008. Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction [A]. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguitics and Second Language Acquistion [C]. New York:Routledge.
Tyler, A& V. Evans.2004. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:The case of over [A]. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Pedagogy [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ullmann, S.1957. The Principles of Semantics:A Linguistic Approach to Meaning [M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Ungerer and H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Violi, P.2000. Prototypicality, typicality, and context [A]. In L. Albertazzi (ed.). Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Widdowson, H. G.1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L.1953. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Tranlated by Anscombe, G. E. M. Newyork:MacMillan.
Zipf, G. K.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M]. Cambridge, Ma.: Addison-wesley.
车若水,1965,脚气集[M]。台北：艺文印书馆。
程琪龙,2001,认知语言学概论--语言的神经认知基础[M]。北京：外语教学与研究 出版社。
陈平,1994,现代汉语空语类研究[M]。济南：山东教育出版社。
陈伟英,2005,省略与省力[J]。浙江大学学报(6)。
陈伟英,2006,唐诗主语省略英译补出现象[J]。浙江大学学报(6)。
陈勇,1999,省略的语用研究[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(5)。
戴明远,2003,基础信息论[M]。上海：同济大学出版社。
杜·舒尔茨,1981,现代心理学史[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
范开泰,1990,省略、隐含、暗示[J]。语言教学与研究(2)。
范开泰,1993,语法分析的三个平面[J]。语言教学与研究(3)。
范开泰、张亚军,2000,现代汉语语法分析[M]。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
范晓,1996,三个平面的语法观[M]。北京：北京语言学出版社。
范晓,1998,汉语的句子类型[M]。太原：书海出版社。
费尔迪南·德·索绪尔著；高名凯译,1996,普通语言学教程[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
辜正坤,1998,中西诗鉴赏与翻译[M]。长沙：湖南人民出版社。
桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
韩景泉,1997,空语类理论与汉语空位宾语[J]。国外语言学(4)。
何自然、冉永平,2001,语用与认知[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
何自然、冉永平,2002,语用学概论[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
洪堡特,K.L.,1997,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。北京：商务印书馆。
胡守仁等,1993,神经网络导论[M]。长沙：国防科技大学出版社。
胡裕树,1992,语法研究的三个平面[J]。语文学习(11)。
胡裕树,1995,现代汉语[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
胡裕树、范晓,1987,试论语法研究的三个平面[J]。新疆师大学报(2)。
胡壮麟,1994,语篇的衔接与连贯[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2004,认知隐喻学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
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。
黄关福,1986,英语省略法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
黄国文,1988,语篇分析概要[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
黄南松,1997,省略和语篇[J]。汉语研究(1)。
贾彦德,1999,汉语语义学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
姜望琪,2005,汉语的“句子”与英语的sentence[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(1)。
匡芳涛、文旭,2003,图形--背景的现实化[J]。外国语(4)。
黎锦熙,1998,新著国语文法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
李福印,2008,认知语言学概论[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李力,1994,图式在英语阅读教学中的作用[J]。西南师范大学学报(2)。
李森,2005,现代教学论纲要[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
李子云,1991,汉语句法规则[M]。合肥：安徽教育出版社。
廖朝亭,2008,《马氏文通》省略研究的历史意义[J]。贵州教育学院学报(4)。
林纪诚,1986,英语语篇中词汇衔接手段试探[J]。外国语(5)。
刘宓庆,2005,新编当代翻译理论[M]。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘绍龙,2007,翻译心理学[M]。武汉：武汉大学出版社。
刘正光,2006,语言非范畴化[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
罗新璋,1984,翻译论集[C]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕冀平,2002,假设和条件的表达[A]。吕冀平汉语论集[C]。北京：社会科学文献出版社。
吕叔湘,1942,中国文法要略[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
马建忠,1898,马氏文通[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
苗兴伟,2003,语篇的信息连贯[J]。外语教学(2)。
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。
彭聃龄、谭力海,1991,语言心理学[M]。北京：北京师范大学出版社。
彭宣维,2000,英汉语篇综合对比[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
荣晶,1989,汉语省略、隐含和空语类的区别[J]。新疆大学学报(4)。
申小龙,1988,中国句型文化[M]。长春：东北师范大学出版社。
施关淦,1993,再论语法研究中的三个平面[J]。汉语学习(2)。
束定芳,2000,现代语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
舒济,2004,老舍散文选集[M]。天津：百花文艺出版社。
孙家富、张广明,1983,文学词典[M]。武汉：湖北人民出版社。
孙明,2007,古汉语省略的分类[J]。东岳论丛(6)。
田然,2003,现代汉语叙事语篇中NP的省略[J]。汉语学习(6)。
王初明,1990,应用心理语言学[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
王力,1980,汉语史稿[M]。上海：中华书局。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
王脉,2007,英汉空语类的句法分布研究[J]。宁波教育学院学报(1)。
王维贤,1997,现代汉语语法理论研究[M]。北京：语文出版社。
王文斌、姚俊,2004,汉英隐语习语ICM和CB的认知对比考察[J]。外语与外语教学(5)。
王寅,2006,认知语法概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
文旭,1999,国外认知语言学研究综观[J]。外国语(1)。
文旭,2003,词汇空缺的发现程序和认知理据[J]。四川外语学院学报(3)。
文旭、匡方涛,2004,语言空间系统的认知阐释[J]。四川外语学院学报(3)。
夏日光、赵耿林,2006,语义联想省略的语篇探微[J]。长沙理工大学学报(5)。
邢公畹,1994,现代汉语教程[M]。天津：南丌大学出版社。
邢福义,1986,现代汉语[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
邢福义、汪国胜,2003,现代汉语[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
熊哲宏,2002,认知科学导论[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1996,信息状态研究[J]。现代外语(2)。
许余龙,2002,对比语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
许渊冲,1992,中诗音韵探胜[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
杨伯峻、何乐士,2001,古汉语语法极其发展[M]。北京：语文出版社。
张德禄、刘汝山,2003,语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄、苗兴伟等,2005,功能语言学与外语教学[M]。北京：外语教育与研究出版社。
张今、张云清,1981,英汉比较语法纲要[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
张韵斐,1984,现代英语词汇学概论[M]。北京：北京师范大学出版社。
章振邦,2000,新编英语语法教程[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
赵耿林,2007,论会话语篇省略的理据[J]。韶关学院学报。
赵世举,1999,汉语省略句的判断标准问题[J]。中南民族学院学报(4)。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周国光,2005,语义场的结构和类型[J]。华南师范大学学报(1)。
朱德熙,1997,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱利,1991,治家格言 增广贤文 女儿经[M]。上海：上海古籍出版。
朱墨,2000,彼岸集[M]。西安：西安地图出版社。
朱永生,2002,英汉省略的语篇衔接功能对比[J]。山东外语教学(1)。
朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟,2001,英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
邹哲承,2002,从“成语的省略谈起”[J]。汉字文化(4)。