适用于非母语者的英语习语整合处理法
|
摘要
习语作为一种相对固定的表达用语，渗透着人们的日常语言活动，具有形象生动、简洁明快的特点，并且蕴涵着丰富的社会文化信息。然而，习语有何形态特征和意义特征，有何词汇变异和句法转换规律，如何理解和使用等，尚无明确的定论。正是由于习语的多元化特性，习语在语言教学中往往处于边缘化的境遇。一些语言学生对习语的认识停留在囫囵记忆，知其然而不知其所以然的层面上，很少体会到习语的语用价值、认知效应及独特生命力。因此，对习语作全方位的描述和处理是一项艰巨的任务。在第二语言或外语习得领域，习语问题尤为值得关注和探究。
本论文首先对习语的形成及其特性作了共时和历时的描述，进而对处理习语的不同方法和模式展开评述，最后从总体整合的视角集中探讨了以概念结构为依据的习语处理方法即整合处理法。
相对个体论而言的整体论注重整体而不偏重于将总体分解或分割成部分，并强调整体的重要性以及部分之间的相互依赖性，这是习语整合处理法的理论依据。现对这一方法作如下概括：
整合处理法的特征之一是：对相关背景知识和信息、形成习语构建成分意义的基本概念以及由此引伸出的假设和蕴涵作总体整合。
其次，整合处理法旨在将部分或个体组合成有机的统一体。具体而言，在处理习语时，将句法、语义、语用、认知和社会文化五大要素整合成有机的统一体。
再者，整合处理法作为一种动态的研究方法将习语看作是实际运用中生成的概念结构。本论文主要探讨习语如何以一种在线、实时结构出现在真实的语境中或特定的语篇中，语言学习者如何获得对习语的准确理解或解释。现举例说明。true to form的词典释义为“一如往常”。True to form, John turned up late. True to form, when it came to his turn to buy the drinks, he said he'd left his wallet at home. True to form, Hurricane Wilma is projected to come ashore near Naples, Florida in just a few hours.True to form, Britain has promoted the interests of corporations, not of Africa at the G8 (the Group of the Eight Countries).
(Melbourne Indymedia, July 2005)
从结构上分析，这一习语大体上总是位于句首，且用逗号与句子主体分开。如采用整合处理法就会发现“一如往常”这一词典释义并不确切。以最后一句为例。该句中的true to form间接地表达了不赞成甚至谴责的态度，暗示了八国集团一再要求非洲发展中国家采取自由贸易政策，为西方发达国家创造有利的贸易环境这一恃强凌弱的行为以及由此造成的使非洲国家丧失贸易调控杠杆，加剧贫穷走势的后果。在这一特定的上下文中，true to form作为一个出现在真实语境中的概念结构具有特定的蕴涵，即“故态复萌”、“故伎重演”。这一意义由该习语的句法、语义、语用及社会文化等要素整合而成。
本论文旨在向读者展示在生成和解释习语时，如何通过整合处理法将思想映射到语言中使形式与内涵匹配，并试图扩展这一研究用于语言学习，以最有效的方法来处理语言中的习语现象。
英语习语整合处理法的提出具有一定的原创性。自上世纪六十年代以来，随着习语研究的逐渐展开，由形式语言学、功能语言学、认知语言学等不同的理论构架衍生出一系列的习语理解模式，如Lexical Processing Model(Bobrow & Bell 1973), Simultaneous Processing Model (Swinney & Cutler 1979), Configuration Model (Cacciari & Tabossi 1988)及Decomposition Processing Model(Gibbs et al．1989)等。这些模式的构建无一例外是以母语人群为适用对象的。就目前而言，针对非母语人群的习语研究尚未形成气候，现有少量文献(Lattey 1986；Lennon 1998；Cooper 1999)局限于提供一些操作层面的教学细节提示。正是在这样的研究背景下，作者尝试探索出一个针对非母语者的英语习语整合处理法，旨在抛砖引玉，一方面对英语习语的教学提供些许的启示或参考，另一方面激发对这一领域更深入的兴趣和探究。
全文由六章组成。第一章简要介绍了习语研究的历史背景，展示了理解和掌握习语与语言习得间的必然关联，并对本文的写作意图、总体构架以及语料收集作了概述。
第二章首先探讨了习语形成的一般过程，习语与单词、习语与其它固定表达用语的区别，以及习语内在的多重特性。在此前提下，通过对已有习语定义的比较分析，本章提出了更能如实反映习语多样性的描述性定义，强调了习语在形象生动、简约明快的表达形式下传递出的丰富内涵。
第三章回顾了自上世纪六十年代后期以来的习语研究历程。近四十年来，形式语言学、功能语言学以及认知语言学分别从各自的视角出发关注着习语的分类、习语的变异、习语的喻义和本义间的关系等共同问题，并相继确立了各自的习语理解模式。本章对采用这三种研究方法开展的习语研究作了较为详尽的探讨，着重分析比较了各自代表性的成果如Bruce Fraser(1970)的习语固化分级，Fernando(1996)，Cacciari和Ghcksberg(1991，1993)的习语功能化分类，Vega-Moreno(2001)的关联论判释法，Cacciari和Tabossi(1988)的完形模式，Gibbs和Nayak(1989)的习语分解模式以及Gibbs(1994)的隐喻模式。这三种研究方法的启示和整合，奠定了本文后续章节的理论基础。
第四章将视线转向了习语在实际语境中表现出来的词汇特征和句法特征。前一章中所讨论的理论构架在本章中得到了整合并用于分析、归纳采自Riehemann(2001)、Moon(1998)的语料库研究和Cowie等人(1993)的习语词典的原始例证，同时也包括了作者本人在日常阅读中积累的第一手语料。这些语料所展示的习语变异和句型转换带有一定的规律，对语言教学尤其是习语教学的有效开展具有针对性的指导意义。
第五章提出了适用于非母语者的英语习语整合处理法。这一方法的理论构思，在肯定了形式语言学对习语形态和结构描述的同时，更强调习语的交际功能，语用价值和认知效应，因而明确了语用能力、形象表达能力和社会文化能力的均衡开发应该贯穿习语教学乃至英语教学的全过程。根据这一原则，结合作者的实际教学积累，习语整合处理法进一步推出了具体的习语处理策略，旨在引导学习者对习语的相关背景信息、内在语义结构以及外部语境等进行分析、推理、联想、类比并加以整合，达到预期的、准确的理解。
第六章对本课题做出总结，认为习语内在的多元特性决定了对习语的研究必须整合形式、功能、认知三个不同的视角加以审视。习语整合处理法体现了这三种研究方法相辅相成的内在联系，是针对非母语者开展英语习语教学的有效途径。本章对如何完善这一方法提出了建议，如进一步探讨习语变异的其它类型以
及针对性的教学策略；进一步比较习语的形式化分类与功能化分类间的优势互补关系及对教学的意义；尝试探寻习语的喻义与另一种形象思维倾向—潜在借喻结构之间的关系。
Idioms belong to the vast family of fixed expressions including collocations, proverbs, cliches, speech formulas, and so forth that shares some degree of conventionalization of meaning yet at the same time differs in semantic as well as syntactic properties. A large part of our everyday linguistic repertoire is formed by these conventionalized ways of saying things. Nonetheless, the task of describing what an idiom is, and how it is processed and understood, is still a rather challenging and controversial one, particularly in second or foreign language acquisition. Idioms remain to be viewed by a good many language teachers as mere quirks of the language, used randomly or without much motivation. They have been relegated to the sidelines of language teaching. Students are usually left with memorizing idioms as chunks and using them in some gap-filling exercises without much context. With only a superficial knowledge of idioms, they find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in their readings, discussions, debates and communication with native speakers. How idioms are processed by non-native speakers is definitely a non-negligible area deserving keen observation and detailed investigation.
This dissertation starts with a synchronic and diachronic delineation of distinctive properties of idioms, then proceeds on to a critical review of different approaches (formal, functional, and psycholinguistic) and models for processing idioms (the Lexical Processing Model, the Simultaneous Processing Model, the Configuration Model, The Decomposition Processing Model) and finally focuses on a conceptual structure-based approach from the perspective of holistic integration — a holistic approach to English idioms for non-native speakers.
As opposed to atomism, holism is concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts and emphasizes the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its components. The holistic approach to English idioms motivated by this theory can be epitomized as follows.
One of the hallmarks of this approach is the holistic integration of information
from background knowledge, the concepts underlying constituent word meanings and the assumptions and implications arising from them.
Secondly, this approach aims at organizing parts into an organic, unified whole. To be more specific, holism-based idiom access involves integrating syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, cognitive and sociocultural factors into an organic, unified whole when an idiom is processed.
Thirdly, as a dynamic approach, the holistic approach treats an idiom as a conceptual structure occurring as an on-line, real-time construction in an actual environment or in a particular text or context.
By way of illustration, evidence is provided to fortify the arguments as presented in this dissertation.
true to form: being or behaving as expected; in the usual, typical or characteristic way (dictionary explanation)
True to form, John turned up late.
True to form, when it came to his turn to buy the drinks, he said he 'd left his
wallet at home.
Ture to form, Hurricane Wilma is projected to come ashore near Naples, Florida
in just a few hours.
True to form, Britain has promoted the interests of corporations, not of Africa, at
the G8 (the Group of the Eight Countries).
(Melbourne Indymedia, July 2005)
A structural analysis of the idiom shows that it is invariably positioned at the beginning and separated by a comma from the main framework of the sentence. A holistic examination of the idiom as it occurs in the particular context will reveal the inadequacy of the sole reliance on the syntactic analysis and make it necessary to improve the dictionary explanation. In the last case for instance, the idiom true to form in that particular context conveys an indirect reproach of the G8 agreement made for the benefit of rich countries. It hints at the G8's undesirable practice of requiring African countries to pursue the free trade policy and create more favorite business environment for western companies. This goal of free trade for poor countries is a
authentic discourse. It shows further how idiom compositionality combines with context as well as general world knowledge to constrain or motivate idiom variation and productivity.
Chapter Five brings forth a holistic approach to English idioms for non-native speakers and recommends developing different types of competence and different strategies for holistic access to English idioms. This approach is intended to provide learners with constructive guidelines to make idiom comprehension and language learning more enjoyable and fruitful.
Chapter Six is mainly concerned with pedagogical implications of the present study and suggestions for further exploration.
本论文首先对习语的形成及其特性作了共时和历时的描述，进而对处理习语的不同方法和模式展开评述，最后从总体整合的视角集中探讨了以概念结构为依据的习语处理方法即整合处理法。
相对个体论而言的整体论注重整体而不偏重于将总体分解或分割成部分，并强调整体的重要性以及部分之间的相互依赖性，这是习语整合处理法的理论依据。现对这一方法作如下概括：
整合处理法的特征之一是：对相关背景知识和信息、形成习语构建成分意义的基本概念以及由此引伸出的假设和蕴涵作总体整合。
其次，整合处理法旨在将部分或个体组合成有机的统一体。具体而言，在处理习语时，将句法、语义、语用、认知和社会文化五大要素整合成有机的统一体。
再者，整合处理法作为一种动态的研究方法将习语看作是实际运用中生成的概念结构。本论文主要探讨习语如何以一种在线、实时结构出现在真实的语境中或特定的语篇中，语言学习者如何获得对习语的准确理解或解释。现举例说明。true to form的词典释义为“一如往常”。True to form, John turned up late. True to form, when it came to his turn to buy the drinks, he said he'd left his wallet at home. True to form, Hurricane Wilma is projected to come ashore near Naples, Florida in just a few hours.True to form, Britain has promoted the interests of corporations, not of Africa at the G8 (the Group of the Eight Countries).
(Melbourne Indymedia, July 2005)
从结构上分析，这一习语大体上总是位于句首，且用逗号与句子主体分开。如采用整合处理法就会发现“一如往常”这一词典释义并不确切。以最后一句为例。该句中的true to form间接地表达了不赞成甚至谴责的态度，暗示了八国集团一再要求非洲发展中国家采取自由贸易政策，为西方发达国家创造有利的贸易环境这一恃强凌弱的行为以及由此造成的使非洲国家丧失贸易调控杠杆，加剧贫穷走势的后果。在这一特定的上下文中，true to form作为一个出现在真实语境中的概念结构具有特定的蕴涵，即“故态复萌”、“故伎重演”。这一意义由该习语的句法、语义、语用及社会文化等要素整合而成。
本论文旨在向读者展示在生成和解释习语时，如何通过整合处理法将思想映射到语言中使形式与内涵匹配，并试图扩展这一研究用于语言学习，以最有效的方法来处理语言中的习语现象。
英语习语整合处理法的提出具有一定的原创性。自上世纪六十年代以来，随着习语研究的逐渐展开，由形式语言学、功能语言学、认知语言学等不同的理论构架衍生出一系列的习语理解模式，如Lexical Processing Model(Bobrow & Bell 1973), Simultaneous Processing Model (Swinney & Cutler 1979), Configuration Model (Cacciari & Tabossi 1988)及Decomposition Processing Model(Gibbs et al．1989)等。这些模式的构建无一例外是以母语人群为适用对象的。就目前而言，针对非母语人群的习语研究尚未形成气候，现有少量文献(Lattey 1986；Lennon 1998；Cooper 1999)局限于提供一些操作层面的教学细节提示。正是在这样的研究背景下，作者尝试探索出一个针对非母语者的英语习语整合处理法，旨在抛砖引玉，一方面对英语习语的教学提供些许的启示或参考，另一方面激发对这一领域更深入的兴趣和探究。
全文由六章组成。第一章简要介绍了习语研究的历史背景，展示了理解和掌握习语与语言习得间的必然关联，并对本文的写作意图、总体构架以及语料收集作了概述。
第二章首先探讨了习语形成的一般过程，习语与单词、习语与其它固定表达用语的区别，以及习语内在的多重特性。在此前提下，通过对已有习语定义的比较分析，本章提出了更能如实反映习语多样性的描述性定义，强调了习语在形象生动、简约明快的表达形式下传递出的丰富内涵。
第三章回顾了自上世纪六十年代后期以来的习语研究历程。近四十年来，形式语言学、功能语言学以及认知语言学分别从各自的视角出发关注着习语的分类、习语的变异、习语的喻义和本义间的关系等共同问题，并相继确立了各自的习语理解模式。本章对采用这三种研究方法开展的习语研究作了较为详尽的探讨，着重分析比较了各自代表性的成果如Bruce Fraser(1970)的习语固化分级，Fernando(1996)，Cacciari和Ghcksberg(1991，1993)的习语功能化分类，Vega-Moreno(2001)的关联论判释法，Cacciari和Tabossi(1988)的完形模式，Gibbs和Nayak(1989)的习语分解模式以及Gibbs(1994)的隐喻模式。这三种研究方法的启示和整合，奠定了本文后续章节的理论基础。
第四章将视线转向了习语在实际语境中表现出来的词汇特征和句法特征。前一章中所讨论的理论构架在本章中得到了整合并用于分析、归纳采自Riehemann(2001)、Moon(1998)的语料库研究和Cowie等人(1993)的习语词典的原始例证，同时也包括了作者本人在日常阅读中积累的第一手语料。这些语料所展示的习语变异和句型转换带有一定的规律，对语言教学尤其是习语教学的有效开展具有针对性的指导意义。
第五章提出了适用于非母语者的英语习语整合处理法。这一方法的理论构思，在肯定了形式语言学对习语形态和结构描述的同时，更强调习语的交际功能，语用价值和认知效应，因而明确了语用能力、形象表达能力和社会文化能力的均衡开发应该贯穿习语教学乃至英语教学的全过程。根据这一原则，结合作者的实际教学积累，习语整合处理法进一步推出了具体的习语处理策略，旨在引导学习者对习语的相关背景信息、内在语义结构以及外部语境等进行分析、推理、联想、类比并加以整合，达到预期的、准确的理解。
第六章对本课题做出总结，认为习语内在的多元特性决定了对习语的研究必须整合形式、功能、认知三个不同的视角加以审视。习语整合处理法体现了这三种研究方法相辅相成的内在联系，是针对非母语者开展英语习语教学的有效途径。本章对如何完善这一方法提出了建议，如进一步探讨习语变异的其它类型以
及针对性的教学策略；进一步比较习语的形式化分类与功能化分类间的优势互补关系及对教学的意义；尝试探寻习语的喻义与另一种形象思维倾向—潜在借喻结构之间的关系。
Idioms belong to the vast family of fixed expressions including collocations, proverbs, cliches, speech formulas, and so forth that shares some degree of conventionalization of meaning yet at the same time differs in semantic as well as syntactic properties. A large part of our everyday linguistic repertoire is formed by these conventionalized ways of saying things. Nonetheless, the task of describing what an idiom is, and how it is processed and understood, is still a rather challenging and controversial one, particularly in second or foreign language acquisition. Idioms remain to be viewed by a good many language teachers as mere quirks of the language, used randomly or without much motivation. They have been relegated to the sidelines of language teaching. Students are usually left with memorizing idioms as chunks and using them in some gap-filling exercises without much context. With only a superficial knowledge of idioms, they find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in their readings, discussions, debates and communication with native speakers. How idioms are processed by non-native speakers is definitely a non-negligible area deserving keen observation and detailed investigation.
This dissertation starts with a synchronic and diachronic delineation of distinctive properties of idioms, then proceeds on to a critical review of different approaches (formal, functional, and psycholinguistic) and models for processing idioms (the Lexical Processing Model, the Simultaneous Processing Model, the Configuration Model, The Decomposition Processing Model) and finally focuses on a conceptual structure-based approach from the perspective of holistic integration — a holistic approach to English idioms for non-native speakers.
As opposed to atomism, holism is concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts and emphasizes the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its components. The holistic approach to English idioms motivated by this theory can be epitomized as follows.
One of the hallmarks of this approach is the holistic integration of information
from background knowledge, the concepts underlying constituent word meanings and the assumptions and implications arising from them.
Secondly, this approach aims at organizing parts into an organic, unified whole. To be more specific, holism-based idiom access involves integrating syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, cognitive and sociocultural factors into an organic, unified whole when an idiom is processed.
Thirdly, as a dynamic approach, the holistic approach treats an idiom as a conceptual structure occurring as an on-line, real-time construction in an actual environment or in a particular text or context.
By way of illustration, evidence is provided to fortify the arguments as presented in this dissertation.
true to form: being or behaving as expected; in the usual, typical or characteristic way (dictionary explanation)
True to form, John turned up late.
True to form, when it came to his turn to buy the drinks, he said he 'd left his
wallet at home.
Ture to form, Hurricane Wilma is projected to come ashore near Naples, Florida
in just a few hours.
True to form, Britain has promoted the interests of corporations, not of Africa, at
the G8 (the Group of the Eight Countries).
(Melbourne Indymedia, July 2005)
A structural analysis of the idiom shows that it is invariably positioned at the beginning and separated by a comma from the main framework of the sentence. A holistic examination of the idiom as it occurs in the particular context will reveal the inadequacy of the sole reliance on the syntactic analysis and make it necessary to improve the dictionary explanation. In the last case for instance, the idiom true to form in that particular context conveys an indirect reproach of the G8 agreement made for the benefit of rich countries. It hints at the G8's undesirable practice of requiring African countries to pursue the free trade policy and create more favorite business environment for western companies. This goal of free trade for poor countries is a
authentic discourse. It shows further how idiom compositionality combines with context as well as general world knowledge to constrain or motivate idiom variation and productivity.
Chapter Five brings forth a holistic approach to English idioms for non-native speakers and recommends developing different types of competence and different strategies for holistic access to English idioms. This approach is intended to provide learners with constructive guidelines to make idiom comprehension and language learning more enjoyable and fruitful.
Chapter Six is mainly concerned with pedagogical implications of the present study and suggestions for further exploration.
引文
Abdullah, K. & Jackson, H. 1999. Idioms and the language learner. Language in Contrast, Vol. Ⅰ(Ⅰ), 83-107.
Abel, B. 2003. English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329-358.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E. 1987. Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 155-70.
Brinton, L. J. & Akimoto, M. (eds.) 1999. Collocational & Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bobrow, S. & Bell, S. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition, 1,343-346.
Bulut, T. Idiom processing in L2: through rose-colored glasses. Sept. 2004
Crortk, B.C., Lima, S.D. & Schweigert, W. A. 1993. Idioms in sentences: effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of PsychoIinguistic Research, 22, 59-82.
Caeeiari, C. & Tabossi, P. (eds.) 1993. ldioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cacciari, C. & Tabossi P. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Language and Memory, 27, 668-683.
Cacciari, C. & Glucksberg, S. 1991. Understanding idiomatic expressions: the contribution of word meanings. In G. B. Simpson (ed.) Understanding Word and Sentence. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. 217-240.
Colombo, L. 1993. The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) ldioms, Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 163-185
Cooper, T. C. 1998. Teaching idioms. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 255-266.
Cooper, T. C. 1999. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 233-262
Estill, R. B. & Kemper, S. 1982. Interpreting idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 559-568.
Everaert, M., van der Linden, E. J., Schenk, A. & Schreuder, R. (eds.) 1995. Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fellbaum, C. 1993. The determiner in English idioms. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (eds.) ldioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 271-296.
Femando, C. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Femando, C. & Flavell, R. 1981. On idioms: Critical views and perspectives. Exeter Linguistic Studies, 5, 18-48.
Fillmore, L. W. 1979. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S. Y. Wang (eds.) Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. Academic Press.
Fraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 4, 109-127.
Galinsky, A.D. & Glucksberg, S. 2000. Inhibition of the literal: Metaphors and idioms as judgmental primes. Social Cognition, 18, 35-54.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1986. Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 9, 17-30.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1991. Semantic analyzability in children's understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1992. What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485-506.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. In M. Everaert, E. J. van der Linden, A. Schenk & R. Schreuder (eds.) Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 97-116
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Gonzales, G. E 1985. Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idiom. Cognition, 20, 243-259
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Nayak, N.E 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100-138.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J. L. & Keppel, M. E. 1989. Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition, 17, 58-68.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Nayak, N. P. & Cutting, C. 1989. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576-593.
Glass, A. L. 1983. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 429-442.
Glucksberg, S. 1993. Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 3-26.
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
.Glucksberg, S., Brown, M. & McGlone, M.S. 1993. Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21, 711-719.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. and Bookin, H. B. 1982. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85-98.
Giora, R. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601-1618.
Halliday, M. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hamblin, J. L. & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1999. Why you can't kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 25-39.
Irujo, S. 1986. A piece of cake: Learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, 40, 236-241.
Irujo, S. 1986. Don't put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 287-304.
Irujo, S. 1993. Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31,205-219.
Jaeger, L. 1999. The Nature of Idioms. Bern: European Academic Publishers.
Katz, J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschriftfor Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 357-376.
Katz, J. & Postal, P. 1963. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 70, 275-282.
Kavka, S. & Zybert, J. Glimpses on the history of idiomaticity issues. 26 Apr. 2005
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. 1995. Intuition of the transparency of idioms: can one keep a secret by spilling the beans?Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89-109.
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. 1999. Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1559-1578.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & Kovecses, Z. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (eds.) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 195-221.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lattey, E. 1986. Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for the language learner. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 3, 217-233.
Lermon, P. 1998. Approaches to the teaching of idiomatic language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 11-30.
Levorato, M. C. 1993. The acquisition of idioms and the development of figurative competence. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 101-128.
Levorato M. C. & Cacciari, C. 1992. Children's comprehension and production of idioms: The role of context and familiarity. Child Language, 19, 415-433.
Liu, D. 2003. The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671-700.
Ladusaw, W. Meanings. Dec. 2004
Makkai, A. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. New York: Longman.
McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S. & Cacciari, C. 1994. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes. 17, 167-190.
Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
National Urban Alliance. Phrases with origins. 11 Oct. 1998
Nayak, N. P. & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1990. Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119, 315-330.
Needham, W. P. 1992. Limits on literal processing during idiom interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 1-16.
Newmeyer F. J. 1974. The regularity of idiom behavior. Lingua, 34, 327-342.
Nicolas, T. 1995. Semantics of idiom modification. In M. Everaert et al. (eds.)Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. 1994. Idioms. Language, 70, 491-538.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L. Reynolds, R. E. & Antos, S. J. 1978. Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465-477.
Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Palacios Martinez, I. M. Negative polarity idioms in modem English. 5 Apr. 2005
Palmer, F. R. 1981. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawley, A. 1993. A language which defies description by ordinary means. In W. Foley (ed) The Role of Theory in Language Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 87-129.
Peters, A. M. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, R. R. & Burgess, C. 1993. Syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension: Neurolinguistic and Psycholinguisitc Dissociations. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 201-223.
Pinnavaia, L. The grammaticalization of English idioms: a hypothesis for teaching purposes. Jan. 2002
Popiel, S. & Me Rae, K. 1988. The figurative and literal senses of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 475-487.
Pdnz, P. M. 1983. The development of idiomatic meaning in children. Langauge and Speech, 26, 263-271.
Reagan, R.T. 1987. The syntax of English idioms: Can the dog be put out?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 417-441.
Riehemarm, S. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation, Aug. 2001
Schweigert, W. A. 1985. The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33-45.
Schweigert, W. A. 1991. The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 305-314.
Schweigert, W. A. & Moates, D. R. 1988. Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 281-296.
Simpson, R. & Mendis, D. 2003. A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 419-441.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance." Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston & U. Uchida (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-22.
Strassler, J. 1982. Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Stroop, J. R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
Swirmey, D. A. & Cutler, A. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-534.
Tabossi. T. & Zardon, F. 1993. The activation of idiom meaning in spoken language comprehension. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 145-162.
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. 1994. Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1126-1138.
Van de Voort, M. E. C., & Vonk, W. 1995. You don't die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaert et al. (eds.) Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 283-299.
Vega-Moreno, R. E. 2001. Representing and processing idioms. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 73-107.
Vega-Moreno, R. E. Relevance theory and the construction of idiom meaning. Sept. 2004
Vegas Puente, J. C. Different views on sociocultural competence. 15 Sept. 1997
Wasow, T., Sag, I. A. & Nunberg, G. 1984. Idioms: An interim report. In S. Hattori & K. Inoue (eds.) Proceedings of the ⅩⅢth International Congress of Linguistics. The Hague: CIPL. 102-115.
Weinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms, In J. Puvhel (ed.) Substance and Structure of Language. University of California Press. 23-81.
Yagihashi, H. Idiom passivization: where do syntax and semantics meet. Sept. 2003
常晨光，2004，《英语习语与人际意义》，广州：中山大学出版社。
陆国强，1999，《现代英语词汇学》(新版)，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱永生、严世清，2001，《系统功能语言学多维思考》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
Abel, B. 2003. English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329-358.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E. 1987. Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 155-70.
Brinton, L. J. & Akimoto, M. (eds.) 1999. Collocational & Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bobrow, S. & Bell, S. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition, 1,343-346.
Bulut, T. Idiom processing in L2: through rose-colored glasses. Sept. 2004
Crortk, B.C., Lima, S.D. & Schweigert, W. A. 1993. Idioms in sentences: effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of PsychoIinguistic Research, 22, 59-82.
Caeeiari, C. & Tabossi, P. (eds.) 1993. ldioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cacciari, C. & Tabossi P. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Language and Memory, 27, 668-683.
Cacciari, C. & Glucksberg, S. 1991. Understanding idiomatic expressions: the contribution of word meanings. In G. B. Simpson (ed.) Understanding Word and Sentence. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. 217-240.
Colombo, L. 1993. The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) ldioms, Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 163-185
Cooper, T. C. 1998. Teaching idioms. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 255-266.
Cooper, T. C. 1999. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 233-262
Estill, R. B. & Kemper, S. 1982. Interpreting idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 559-568.
Everaert, M., van der Linden, E. J., Schenk, A. & Schreuder, R. (eds.) 1995. Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fellbaum, C. 1993. The determiner in English idioms. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (eds.) ldioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 271-296.
Femando, C. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Femando, C. & Flavell, R. 1981. On idioms: Critical views and perspectives. Exeter Linguistic Studies, 5, 18-48.
Fillmore, L. W. 1979. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S. Y. Wang (eds.) Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. Academic Press.
Fraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 4, 109-127.
Galinsky, A.D. & Glucksberg, S. 2000. Inhibition of the literal: Metaphors and idioms as judgmental primes. Social Cognition, 18, 35-54.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1986. Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 9, 17-30.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1991. Semantic analyzability in children's understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1992. What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485-506.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. In M. Everaert, E. J. van der Linden, A. Schenk & R. Schreuder (eds.) Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 97-116
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Gonzales, G. E 1985. Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idiom. Cognition, 20, 243-259
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Nayak, N.E 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100-138.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J. L. & Keppel, M. E. 1989. Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition, 17, 58-68.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Nayak, N. P. & Cutting, C. 1989. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576-593.
Glass, A. L. 1983. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 429-442.
Glucksberg, S. 1993. Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 3-26.
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
.Glucksberg, S., Brown, M. & McGlone, M.S. 1993. Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21, 711-719.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. and Bookin, H. B. 1982. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85-98.
Giora, R. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601-1618.
Halliday, M. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hamblin, J. L. & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1999. Why you can't kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 25-39.
Irujo, S. 1986. A piece of cake: Learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, 40, 236-241.
Irujo, S. 1986. Don't put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 287-304.
Irujo, S. 1993. Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31,205-219.
Jaeger, L. 1999. The Nature of Idioms. Bern: European Academic Publishers.
Katz, J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschriftfor Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 357-376.
Katz, J. & Postal, P. 1963. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 70, 275-282.
Kavka, S. & Zybert, J. Glimpses on the history of idiomaticity issues. 26 Apr. 2005
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. 1995. Intuition of the transparency of idioms: can one keep a secret by spilling the beans?Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89-109.
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. 1999. Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1559-1578.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & Kovecses, Z. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (eds.) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 195-221.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lattey, E. 1986. Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for the language learner. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 3, 217-233.
Lermon, P. 1998. Approaches to the teaching of idiomatic language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 11-30.
Levorato, M. C. 1993. The acquisition of idioms and the development of figurative competence. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 101-128.
Levorato M. C. & Cacciari, C. 1992. Children's comprehension and production of idioms: The role of context and familiarity. Child Language, 19, 415-433.
Liu, D. 2003. The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671-700.
Ladusaw, W. Meanings. Dec. 2004
Makkai, A. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. New York: Longman.
McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S. & Cacciari, C. 1994. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes. 17, 167-190.
Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
National Urban Alliance. Phrases with origins. 11 Oct. 1998
Nayak, N. P. & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1990. Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119, 315-330.
Needham, W. P. 1992. Limits on literal processing during idiom interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 1-16.
Newmeyer F. J. 1974. The regularity of idiom behavior. Lingua, 34, 327-342.
Nicolas, T. 1995. Semantics of idiom modification. In M. Everaert et al. (eds.)Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. 1994. Idioms. Language, 70, 491-538.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L. Reynolds, R. E. & Antos, S. J. 1978. Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465-477.
Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Palacios Martinez, I. M. Negative polarity idioms in modem English. 5 Apr. 2005
Palmer, F. R. 1981. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawley, A. 1993. A language which defies description by ordinary means. In W. Foley (ed) The Role of Theory in Language Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 87-129.
Peters, A. M. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, R. R. & Burgess, C. 1993. Syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension: Neurolinguistic and Psycholinguisitc Dissociations. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 201-223.
Pinnavaia, L. The grammaticalization of English idioms: a hypothesis for teaching purposes. Jan. 2002
Popiel, S. & Me Rae, K. 1988. The figurative and literal senses of idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 475-487.
Pdnz, P. M. 1983. The development of idiomatic meaning in children. Langauge and Speech, 26, 263-271.
Reagan, R.T. 1987. The syntax of English idioms: Can the dog be put out?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 417-441.
Riehemarm, S. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation, Aug. 2001
Schweigert, W. A. 1985. The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33-45.
Schweigert, W. A. 1991. The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 305-314.
Schweigert, W. A. & Moates, D. R. 1988. Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 281-296.
Simpson, R. & Mendis, D. 2003. A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 419-441.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance." Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston & U. Uchida (eds.) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-22.
Strassler, J. 1982. Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Stroop, J. R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
Swirmey, D. A. & Cutler, A. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-534.
Tabossi. T. & Zardon, F. 1993. The activation of idiom meaning in spoken language comprehension. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 145-162.
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. 1994. Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1126-1138.
Van de Voort, M. E. C., & Vonk, W. 1995. You don't die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaert et al. (eds.) Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 283-299.
Vega-Moreno, R. E. 2001. Representing and processing idioms. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 73-107.
Vega-Moreno, R. E. Relevance theory and the construction of idiom meaning. Sept. 2004
Vegas Puente, J. C. Different views on sociocultural competence. 15 Sept. 1997
Wasow, T., Sag, I. A. & Nunberg, G. 1984. Idioms: An interim report. In S. Hattori & K. Inoue (eds.) Proceedings of the ⅩⅢth International Congress of Linguistics. The Hague: CIPL. 102-115.
Weinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms, In J. Puvhel (ed.) Substance and Structure of Language. University of California Press. 23-81.
Yagihashi, H. Idiom passivization: where do syntax and semantics meet. Sept. 2003
常晨光，2004，《英语习语与人际意义》，广州：中山大学出版社。
陆国强，1999，《现代英语词汇学》(新版)，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱永生、严世清，2001，《系统功能语言学多维思考》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。