现代汉语名动互转的认知语法考察
摘要
名词和动词被认为是两个普遍的词类范畴,在分布上存在一系列的对立。当一个通常被用作名词的语言单位出现在应该使用动词的语法结构中时,或者一个通常被用作动词的语言单位出现在应该使用名词的结构中时,它们的范畴地位发生改变。这一现象称作转类。本文关注的焦点是现代汉语名词和动词互相转类(以下简称互转)的模式和机制。
以往与名动互转有关的研究主要关注两个问题。首先是如何判断一个语言形式的范畴地位发生变化,这主要涉及主宾语位置的动词的性质问题,即所谓名物化问题。另外一个问题是名词和动词发生转类的动因和机制,开始出现了少量从功能语法和认知语言学角度进行的实证研究。以往研究在很大程度上受制于客观主义语义学的影响,没有考虑到一般认知能力在语言结构和意义中的作用,过分注重理论探讨而忽视语料考察,对于转类的机制和动因的探索不够深入。本文在认知语法框架内考察了与名动互转有关的5类现象,包括汉语主宾语位置的动词的性质、“N的V”结构、动词的转指、名词的动词化、名词谓语句。这一探索主要取得以下发现。
首先,作为一般认知能力的概念物化是汉语动词发生名词化的根本机制。无论是单音节动词还是双音节动词,都凸画一个过程,概念物化作用的对象是构成该过程的各个成分状态,在概念层面上发生作用,与单、双音节没有必然联系。在概念组织的各个层面上,从光杆动词到动词短语,再到限定小句,都可以发生名词化。它们的名词化都可以看作名词,都是象征结构,只不过在象征复杂程度、语义具体程度、固化程度和规约化程度4个方面存在量的差别,而不是质的差别。
其次,参照点能力和概念自主是描写和解释“N的V”结构的主要因素。“N的V”结构与典型的领属结构本质上存在相同之处,都是以一个事物为参照点来访问另一个事物。基于语料库的调查表明,单音节动词的名词化在参照点结构中的出现受到限制。这主要与概念因素和语体因素有关。此外,概念自主程度是影响参照点结构能否成立的最重要的因素。概念自主程度高的动词倾向于在参照点结构中出现,概念依存程度高的动词则很难在其中出现。所有的不及物动词都可以在这一结构中出现,这并非偶然,原因是它们凸画的过程在概念上是自主的。
第三,概念转喻是动词名词化中发生转指的根本机制,转喻的作用在于使语言表达式的凸画从过程转移到与过程有关的语义角色。过程所转喻的各类语义角色中,出现频率最高的是移动者和产物,然后是施事、工具和数量,其他语义角色的转喻极其少见。本文的调查表明,仅仅基于凸显程度的解释不能充分说明汉语名词化中的转指现象。
第四,名词的动词化同样是概念转喻起作用的结果,不同语义角色在转喻过程的频率和可接受程度上差别很大。在各类语义角色中,工具、产物和移动者转喻过程的频率较高,其他角色则较少发生转喻。从认知处理的角度看,施事和受事作为参照点来访问事件不是一个有效率的认知策略。在名词的动词化中,工具是出现频率最高的语义角色,大部分工具都能够转喻它们所参与的事件。决定一个工具名词能否动词化的3个主要因素是该工具的可操纵程度、对于受事的影响程度和该工具与其他工具的相似程度。
第五,汉语的谓语名词表现出动态性,这一性质是主观化和心理扫描的结果。概念化主体在一个抽象路径(即量级)上进行心理扫描,而扫描的终点是主语名词短语所凸画的事物在该路径上的位置。小句的可接受程度与量级的凸显程度存在直接的相关,量级的凸显程度可以通过对比语境来加强。
现代汉语名动互转问题在以往研究中存在众多观点与争议,在很大程度上源自语言学家们在不同研究范式下对同一现象做出的不同观察。无论采取哪一种研究范式,关键是看对语言现象的描写和解释是否符合语言事实。从本文的研究来看,用认知语言学研究范式观察汉语的词类问题,能够使我们对这一问题产生新的认识,从而有助于解决许多传统的争议。
Nouns and verbs are considered to be two universal grammatical categories, and they are opposed to each other in distribution. When a linguistic unit normally used as a noun occurs in the position of a verb, or vice versa, its lexical class changes. This is what is known as conversion in morphology. This dissertation focuses on conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese.
Previous studies of this phenomenon have concentrated on two areas. The first one is concerned with how to judge whether the lexical class of a linguistic unit has changed. In particular, this involves the nature of verbs that occur as subjects or objects in a clause, a controversial topic known as the issue of nominalization in Chinese linguistics. The other area is what motivates conversion between nouns and verbs and what mechanisms are responsible for it. Some researchers have begun to explore this area from perspectives of functional grammar and cognitive linguistics.
Most previous studies, constrained by objectivist semantics, have ignored the role of general cognitive abilities in shaping linguistic structure and meaning. Most researchers have focused their attention on theoretical discussion without sufficient attention to corpus analysis. And the few studies on mechanisms of conversion have not offered a comprehensive description and explanation within a coherent framework. This dissertation has explored conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese within the framework of Cognitive Grammar (CG), concentrating on five issues, including the nature of verbs in the position of subjects or objects, the“N de V”construction, transferred designation in nominalization, verbalization of nouns, and predicative nouns. We have made the following discoveries in our exploration.
First, conceptual reification as a general cognitive ability is the fundamental mechanism responsible for nominalization of verbs in modern Chinese. Whether monosyllabic or disyllabic, a verb always profiles a process. And conceptual reification, working on component states of a process, operates on the conceptual level. Consequently, there is no link between nominalization and the number of syllables. Processes on the various levels of conceptual organization, from verbs, verb phrases to finite clauses, can all be reified as a thing. Their nominalizations can all be considered nouns in CG, their differences residing in degrees of symbolic complexity, specificity, entrenchment, and conventionalization.
Secondly, reference-point abilities and conceptual autonomy are the most important factors for description and explanation of the“N de V”construction. This construction, like typical possessive constructions, can be analyzed as a reference-point structure whereby one entity is used as a reference point for accessing another. And a corpus-based survey indicates that nominalization of monosyllabic verbs in this construction is highly restricted, and this can be attributed to conceptual and stylistic factors. Besides, conceptual autonomy is the most important factor that affects the acceptability of this construction. The higher the degree of conceptual autonomy of a verb, the more likely its nominalization occurs in the construction. All intransitive verbs can occur in this structure precisely because they profile autonomous processes.
Thirdly, conceptual metonymy is a fundamental factor in nominalization, serving to shift the profile of a process to various semantic roles that participate in the process. In terms of frequency of metonymic reference, movers and products are the most important roles, followed by agents, instruments, and quantity, while other semantic roles are rarely accessed via processes. A corpus analysis reveals that the previous theory based on prominence alone is not sufficient to account for metonymic reference in nominalization.
Fourthly, conceptual metonymy also works in conversion of nouns to verbs, and various semantic roles exhibit considerable difference in frequency of conversion and acceptability of metonymy. Nouns designating instruments, products, and movers are frequently converted to verbs, compared with those designating other roles. In terms of cognitive processing, accessing a process via an agent or patient is not an effective or efficient strategy. Instrument nouns are especially important in conversion, most of them capable of referring to a process via metonymy. There are three factors that determine whether an instrument noun can be converted to a verb, namely, manipulability of an instrument, its similarity with other instruments, and affectedness of patient.
Finally, nouns in Chinese have a dynamic nature if serving as predicates in a clause. And this nature can be attributed to subjectification and mental scanning. A conceptualizer mentally scans along an abstract path (i.e. scale), and arrives at a particular position on the path. Acceptability of clauses with predicative nouns correlates with degrees of salience of the path, which can be reinforced by a contrastive context.
In previous studies of conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese, linguists have made their observations from perspectives of various research paradigms. Naturally, this has led to numerous views and disputes. Whatever paradigm one is working within, one’s description and explanation of this phenomenon must conform to reality of language. As this study indicates, a cognitive grammar analysis of conversion in Chinese will produce many new and interesting ideas and throw light on many traditional problems in Chinese.
以往与名动互转有关的研究主要关注两个问题。首先是如何判断一个语言形式的范畴地位发生变化,这主要涉及主宾语位置的动词的性质问题,即所谓名物化问题。另外一个问题是名词和动词发生转类的动因和机制,开始出现了少量从功能语法和认知语言学角度进行的实证研究。以往研究在很大程度上受制于客观主义语义学的影响,没有考虑到一般认知能力在语言结构和意义中的作用,过分注重理论探讨而忽视语料考察,对于转类的机制和动因的探索不够深入。本文在认知语法框架内考察了与名动互转有关的5类现象,包括汉语主宾语位置的动词的性质、“N的V”结构、动词的转指、名词的动词化、名词谓语句。这一探索主要取得以下发现。
首先,作为一般认知能力的概念物化是汉语动词发生名词化的根本机制。无论是单音节动词还是双音节动词,都凸画一个过程,概念物化作用的对象是构成该过程的各个成分状态,在概念层面上发生作用,与单、双音节没有必然联系。在概念组织的各个层面上,从光杆动词到动词短语,再到限定小句,都可以发生名词化。它们的名词化都可以看作名词,都是象征结构,只不过在象征复杂程度、语义具体程度、固化程度和规约化程度4个方面存在量的差别,而不是质的差别。
其次,参照点能力和概念自主是描写和解释“N的V”结构的主要因素。“N的V”结构与典型的领属结构本质上存在相同之处,都是以一个事物为参照点来访问另一个事物。基于语料库的调查表明,单音节动词的名词化在参照点结构中的出现受到限制。这主要与概念因素和语体因素有关。此外,概念自主程度是影响参照点结构能否成立的最重要的因素。概念自主程度高的动词倾向于在参照点结构中出现,概念依存程度高的动词则很难在其中出现。所有的不及物动词都可以在这一结构中出现,这并非偶然,原因是它们凸画的过程在概念上是自主的。
第三,概念转喻是动词名词化中发生转指的根本机制,转喻的作用在于使语言表达式的凸画从过程转移到与过程有关的语义角色。过程所转喻的各类语义角色中,出现频率最高的是移动者和产物,然后是施事、工具和数量,其他语义角色的转喻极其少见。本文的调查表明,仅仅基于凸显程度的解释不能充分说明汉语名词化中的转指现象。
第四,名词的动词化同样是概念转喻起作用的结果,不同语义角色在转喻过程的频率和可接受程度上差别很大。在各类语义角色中,工具、产物和移动者转喻过程的频率较高,其他角色则较少发生转喻。从认知处理的角度看,施事和受事作为参照点来访问事件不是一个有效率的认知策略。在名词的动词化中,工具是出现频率最高的语义角色,大部分工具都能够转喻它们所参与的事件。决定一个工具名词能否动词化的3个主要因素是该工具的可操纵程度、对于受事的影响程度和该工具与其他工具的相似程度。
第五,汉语的谓语名词表现出动态性,这一性质是主观化和心理扫描的结果。概念化主体在一个抽象路径(即量级)上进行心理扫描,而扫描的终点是主语名词短语所凸画的事物在该路径上的位置。小句的可接受程度与量级的凸显程度存在直接的相关,量级的凸显程度可以通过对比语境来加强。
现代汉语名动互转问题在以往研究中存在众多观点与争议,在很大程度上源自语言学家们在不同研究范式下对同一现象做出的不同观察。无论采取哪一种研究范式,关键是看对语言现象的描写和解释是否符合语言事实。从本文的研究来看,用认知语言学研究范式观察汉语的词类问题,能够使我们对这一问题产生新的认识,从而有助于解决许多传统的争议。
Nouns and verbs are considered to be two universal grammatical categories, and they are opposed to each other in distribution. When a linguistic unit normally used as a noun occurs in the position of a verb, or vice versa, its lexical class changes. This is what is known as conversion in morphology. This dissertation focuses on conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese.
Previous studies of this phenomenon have concentrated on two areas. The first one is concerned with how to judge whether the lexical class of a linguistic unit has changed. In particular, this involves the nature of verbs that occur as subjects or objects in a clause, a controversial topic known as the issue of nominalization in Chinese linguistics. The other area is what motivates conversion between nouns and verbs and what mechanisms are responsible for it. Some researchers have begun to explore this area from perspectives of functional grammar and cognitive linguistics.
Most previous studies, constrained by objectivist semantics, have ignored the role of general cognitive abilities in shaping linguistic structure and meaning. Most researchers have focused their attention on theoretical discussion without sufficient attention to corpus analysis. And the few studies on mechanisms of conversion have not offered a comprehensive description and explanation within a coherent framework. This dissertation has explored conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese within the framework of Cognitive Grammar (CG), concentrating on five issues, including the nature of verbs in the position of subjects or objects, the“N de V”construction, transferred designation in nominalization, verbalization of nouns, and predicative nouns. We have made the following discoveries in our exploration.
First, conceptual reification as a general cognitive ability is the fundamental mechanism responsible for nominalization of verbs in modern Chinese. Whether monosyllabic or disyllabic, a verb always profiles a process. And conceptual reification, working on component states of a process, operates on the conceptual level. Consequently, there is no link between nominalization and the number of syllables. Processes on the various levels of conceptual organization, from verbs, verb phrases to finite clauses, can all be reified as a thing. Their nominalizations can all be considered nouns in CG, their differences residing in degrees of symbolic complexity, specificity, entrenchment, and conventionalization.
Secondly, reference-point abilities and conceptual autonomy are the most important factors for description and explanation of the“N de V”construction. This construction, like typical possessive constructions, can be analyzed as a reference-point structure whereby one entity is used as a reference point for accessing another. And a corpus-based survey indicates that nominalization of monosyllabic verbs in this construction is highly restricted, and this can be attributed to conceptual and stylistic factors. Besides, conceptual autonomy is the most important factor that affects the acceptability of this construction. The higher the degree of conceptual autonomy of a verb, the more likely its nominalization occurs in the construction. All intransitive verbs can occur in this structure precisely because they profile autonomous processes.
Thirdly, conceptual metonymy is a fundamental factor in nominalization, serving to shift the profile of a process to various semantic roles that participate in the process. In terms of frequency of metonymic reference, movers and products are the most important roles, followed by agents, instruments, and quantity, while other semantic roles are rarely accessed via processes. A corpus analysis reveals that the previous theory based on prominence alone is not sufficient to account for metonymic reference in nominalization.
Fourthly, conceptual metonymy also works in conversion of nouns to verbs, and various semantic roles exhibit considerable difference in frequency of conversion and acceptability of metonymy. Nouns designating instruments, products, and movers are frequently converted to verbs, compared with those designating other roles. In terms of cognitive processing, accessing a process via an agent or patient is not an effective or efficient strategy. Instrument nouns are especially important in conversion, most of them capable of referring to a process via metonymy. There are three factors that determine whether an instrument noun can be converted to a verb, namely, manipulability of an instrument, its similarity with other instruments, and affectedness of patient.
Finally, nouns in Chinese have a dynamic nature if serving as predicates in a clause. And this nature can be attributed to subjectification and mental scanning. A conceptualizer mentally scans along an abstract path (i.e. scale), and arrives at a particular position on the path. Acceptability of clauses with predicative nouns correlates with degrees of salience of the path, which can be reinforced by a contrastive context.
In previous studies of conversion between nouns and verbs in modern Chinese, linguists have made their observations from perspectives of various research paradigms. Naturally, this has led to numerous views and disputes. Whatever paradigm one is working within, one’s description and explanation of this phenomenon must conform to reality of language. As this study indicates, a cognitive grammar analysis of conversion in Chinese will produce many new and interesting ideas and throw light on many traditional problems in Chinese.
引文
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Barcelona, Antonio. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda Thornburg (eds.),
Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. 81-102.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). Usage-based Models of Llanguage. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In Nancy L. Stein et al (eds.), Representation, Memory, and Development: Essays in Honor of Jean Mandler. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
Biber, Douglas et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman, 1999.
Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London : Longman,1977.
Boroditsky, Lera. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 2000, 75: 1-28.
Brisard, Frank (ed.). Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Bybee, Joan, and C. L. Moder. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 1983, 59: 251-270.
Bybee, Joan. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985.
Bybee, Joan, et al. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994a.
Bybee, Joan. A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 1994b, 5: 285-305.
Bybee, Joan, and Sandra A. Thompson. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1997, 23: 378-88.
Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics, 1999, 37: 575-596.
Bybee, Joan. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 602-623.
Bybee, Joan. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Plenary address, High Desert Linguistic Society, Albuquerque, November 2004. Available at http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Bybee%20plenary.pdf.
Casad, Eugene H. (ed.). Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
Casad, Eugene H., and Gary B. Palmer (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
Chan, Majorie, and James Tai. From Nouns to Verbs: Verbalization in Chinese Dialects and East Asian Languages. Proceedings of the 6th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, 1995. 49-74.
Clark, Eve, and Herbert Clark. When nouns surfaces as verbs. Language, 1979, 55: 767-811.
Clausner, T. C., and William Croft. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 1999, 10, 1: 1-31.
Colman, Fran, and John Anderson. On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to old English. English Studies, 2004, 85 (6): 547-565.
Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 2000, 11: 175-196.
Croft, William. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Croft, William. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Croft, William. Markedness and universals: from the Prague school to typology. In Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.), Multiple perspectives on the historical dimensions of language. Munster: Nodus, 1996. 15-21.
Croft, William. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman, 2000a.
Croft, William. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Petra M. Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word
Classes. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000b. 65-102.
Croft, William. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Croft, William, and D. A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Crystal, David. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Cuyckens, Hubert et al (eds.). Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.
Denis, Michel, and M. Cocude. Scanning visual images generated from verbal description. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1989, 1: 293-307.
Dirven, René. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. 275-287.
Dowty, David. Thematic protoroles and argument selection. Language, 1991, 67: 547-619.
DuBois, John A. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. 343-366.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1985.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 113-127.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 1998, 22 (2): 133-187.
Fillmore, Charles J. The case for case. E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. 1-87.
Fillmore, Charles J. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkley Linguistic Society, 1975, 1: 123-131.
Fillmore, Charles. Frame semantics. Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 1982. 111-138.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 1988, 64: 501-538.
Frawley, William. Linguistic Semantics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
Fried, M., and Jan-Ola ?stman (eds.). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
Gentner, D. Some interesting differences between nouns and verbs. Cognition and Brain Theory, 1981, 4: 161-177.
Gentner, D. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development:. Language, Thought and Culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982. 301-334.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and H. L. Colston. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 1995, 6: 347-378.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 2003, 84: 1-15.
Givón, Talmy. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Givón, Talmy. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.
Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2003, 7: 219-24.
Grady, Joseph. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997a.
Haiman, John. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 1980, 50: 329-357.
Haiman, John (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985a.
Haiman, John. Natural Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985b.
Haiman, John. Ritualization and the development of language. William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994. 3-28.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Frederike Hunnemeyer. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Heine, Bernd. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 1980, 56: 251-99.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 1984, 60: 703-752.
Hopper, Paul. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1987, 13: 139-57. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Israel, Michael. The way constructions grow. Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 217-230.
Janssen. T. and G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Johnson, Christopher. The acquisition of the “What's X doing Y?” construction. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Vol.2. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 1997. 343-53.
Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language,1999 (75):1-34
Kosslyn, Stephen, et al. Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4: 54-60.
K?vecses,Zoltán,and Günter Radden.Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 1998, 9: 33-77.
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki, and Ronald W. Langacker. Double-subject and complex-predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 2003, 14: l-45.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, George. Cognitive Semantics. In U. Eco et al (eds.), Meaning and Representation: Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press, 1988. 119-154.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 202-251.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Langacker, Ronald W. The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics, 1981, 42: 82-135.
Langacker, Ronald W. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language, 1982, 58: 22–80.
Langacker, Ronald W. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (ed.),
Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985. 109-150.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987a.
Langacker, Ronald W. Nouns and verbs. Language, 1987b, 63: 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald W. A Usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988a. 127-161.
Langacker, Ronald W. Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar. In D. Brentari, G.
Larson and L. MacLeod (eds.), Agreement in grammatical theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1988b. 147-180.
Langacker, Ronald W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Langacker, Ronald W. The symbolic nature of cognitive grammar: The meaning of of and of of-periphrasis. In M. Pütz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992. 483-502.
Langacker, Ronald. W. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993a, 4: 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. Universals of construal. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1993b, 19: 447-463.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences, 1993c, 15: 323-355.
Langacker, Ronald W. Possession and possessive constructions. In John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995a. 51-79.
Langacker, Ronald W. Raising and transparency. Language, 1995b, 71: 1-62.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar. In I.-H. Lee (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. Seoul: Hanshin, 1995c. 149-172.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora (Typological Studies in Language 33). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 333-378.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 1997, 8: 1-32.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Erlbaum, 1998. 1-39.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammar and conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research 14). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999a.
Langacker, Ronald W. Virtual reality. Studies in the linguistic sciences, 1999b, 29 (2): 77-103.
Langacker, Ronald W. Double-subject constructions. In Bak Sung-Yun, (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4. Seoul: Hanshin, 1999c. 83-104.
Langacker, Ronald W. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (Cognitive Linguistics Research 15). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999d. 13-59.
Langacker, Ronald W. Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank and P. Koch (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (Cognitive
Linguistics Research 13). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999e. 147-175.
Langacker, Ronald W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001a, 12: 143-188.
Langacker, Ronald W. Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 2001b, 12: 7-33.
Langacker, Ronald W. The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 2001c, 5: 251-271.
Langacker, Ronald W. Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. G. Simonsen and R. T. Endresen (eds.), A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives (Cognitive Linguistics Research 16). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001d. 11-48.
Langacker, Ronald W. Remarks on the English grounding systems. In Brisard (2002), 29-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard (2002), 1-28.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics, 2003a, 20: 41-83.
Langacker Ronald W. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions. Language and Linguistics, 2003b, 2: 251-278.
Langacker, Ronald W. Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. Korean Linguistics, 2003c, 18: 1-64.
Langacker, Ronald W. One any. Korean Linguistics, 2003d, 18: 65-105.
Langacker, Ronald W. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 2004a, 11: 77-113.
Langacker, Ronald W. Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2004b, 6: 2-23.
Langacker, Ronald W. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried and H. C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005a.157-189.
Langacker, Ronald W. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá?ez and M. S. Pe?a Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005b. 101-159.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constructions and Constructional meaning. UC San Diego: manuscript, 2006.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese : A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. MacWhinney, B. The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of
Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1987. 249-308. MacWhinney, B. The Emergence of Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. Mandler, Jean. How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 1992, 99: 587-604.
Marchand, Hans. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck, 1969.
Matlock, Teenie and Paul P. Maglio. Apparent motion on the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
Matlock, Teenie. How real is fictive motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2001.
Matlock, Teenie. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 2004a, 32 (8): 1389-1400.
Matlock, Teenie. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004b. 221-248.
Matsumoto, Yo. How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996a. 359-373.
Matsumoto, Yo. Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In Fauconnier and Sweetser (1996b), 124-156.
McClelland, James L. and J. L. Elman. Interactive Processes in Speech Perception: The TRACE Model. In Rumelhart et al (1986a), Vol.2, 58-121.
McClelland, James. L. The TRACE Model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1986b, 18: 1-86.
Michaelis, L.A., and K. Lambrecht. Toward a construction-based model of language function: the case of nominal extraposition. Language, 1996, 72: 215-247.
Michaelis, Laura A. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven and J. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. 163-210.
Michaelis, L.A. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 2004, 15: 1-67.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 2003, 79: 682-707.
Ohori, Toshio. Construction grammar as a conceptual framework for linguistic typology: A case from reference tracking. In Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2005. 215-237.
Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998, 30: 755-769.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English gramma. In Antonio Barcelona (2000): 215-231.
Pütz, M., S. Niemeier, and R. Dirven (eds). Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. I: Theory and Language Acquisition; Vol. II: LanguagePedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.
Queller, K. A usage-based approach to modeling and teaching the phrasal lexicon. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, and R. Dirven (2001), 55-83.
Queller, K. Metonymic sense shift: Its origins in hearers’ abductive construal of usage in context. H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven and J.R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 23). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. 211-241.
Quirk, Randolph, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Radden, Günter, and Zoltán K?vecses. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (1999), 17-59.
Radden, Günter, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
Reddy, M. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 164-201.
Rosch, Eleanor, et al. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 7: 573-605.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. and Lorena Pérez Hernández. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 2001, 21: 321-357.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Sandra, D., and Sally Rice. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 1995, 6: 89-130.
Santibá?ez, Francisco. The object image-schema and other dependent schemas. Atlantis, 2002, 2: 183-201.
Shepard, Roger N., and Jaqueline Metzler. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 1971, 171: 701-703.
Shibatani, M. and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Sinclair, J. M. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Sinclair, John et al. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins, 1995.
Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986/1995.
Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Sweetser, Eve. Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (Cognitive Linguistics Research 15). Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. 129-162.
Tai, James H-Y. Category shifts and word-formation redundancy rules in Chinese. In H. Samuel Wang and Feng-fu Tsao (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics. Taipei: National Tsing Hua University, 1992. 1-19.
Talmy, Leonard. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 1988, 12: 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom et al. (Eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford, 1996. 211-276.
Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford, 2000a. Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept
Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000b.
Taylor, John. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Taylor, John. R. “Subjective” and “objective” readings of possessor nominals. Cognitive Linguistics, 1994, 3: 201-242.
Taylor, John R. Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon, 1996.
Taylor, John. R. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Thornburg, Linda, and Klaus-Uwe Panther. Speech act metonymies. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997. 205-219.
Tomasello, Michael. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Tomasello, Michael. The return of constructions. Review article on Goldberg (1995). Journal of Child Language, 1998, 25: 431-442.
Tomasello, Michael. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 2000, 11: 61-82.
Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Tuggy, David. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993, 4: 273-290.
Turner, Mark. Death is the Mother of Beauty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Turner, Mark. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Tyler, A., and V. Evans. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 2001, 77: 724-765.
Ungerer, F., and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman, 1996.
Van Hoek, Karen. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 1995, 71: 310-340.
Van Hoek, Karen. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, l997.
Verhagen, A. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics, 2002, 1: 13-14
Wierzbicka, Anna. Why you can have a Drink when you can’t have an Eat. Language, 1982, 4: 753-799.
Wierzbicka, Anna. Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. 311-342.
Wierzbicka, Anna. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988.
Wierzbicka, Anna. Dictionaries vs. encyclopaedias: How to draw the line. In P. W. Davis (ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. 289-315.
Zwicky, Arnold M. Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 1985, 21: 1-29.
蔡文兰.带非名词性宾语的动词.中国语文,1986,4:253-260.
陈宁萍.现代汉语名词类的扩大.中国语文,1987,5:379-389.
陈平.释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念.中国语文,1987,2:81-92.
陈平.试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则.中国语文,1994,3:161-168.
陈庆汉.“N 的 V”短语的句法、语义、语用研究综述. 华中师范大学学报,1996, 2.
陈庆汉.“N 的 V”短语中心语“V”语法性质研究述评.汉语学习,2002,5:53-57.
陈庆汉.20 世纪“N 的 V” 短语研究评析.河南大学学报 (社会科学版), 2005, 5:151-155.
陈群.谈谈名词活用的表达效果.修辞学习,1998,5:35.
陈小荷.主观量问题初探—兼谈副词“就”、“才”、“都”.世界汉语教学,1995,4:18-24.
程工.名物化与向心结构理论新探.现代外语,1999a,2:128-144.
程工.语言共性论.上海:上海外语教学出版社,1999b.
邓思颖.汉语时间词谓语句的限制条件.中国语文,2002,3:217-221.
丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话.北京:商务印书馆,1961.
范晓.VP 主语句—兼论“N 的 V”作主语. 语法研究与探索(第六辑).北京:语文出版社,1992. 176-189.
范晓.三个平面的语法观.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1996.
方光焘.语法论稿.南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
方光焘.方光焘语言学论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
方立.论语言的可分离性.外语教学与研究,1995,4:9-13.
高芳,徐盛桓.名动转用与语用推理.外国语,2000a,2:7-14.
高芳,徐盛桓.名动转用语用推理的认知策略.外语与外语教学,2000b,4:13-16.
高航.语言类型学中的词类问题.外国语言文学,2003,1:3-8.
高航.现代汉语中“子”的语法化分析.解放军外国语学院学报,2006,2:22-26.
高航,严辰松.“头”的语法化考察.外语研究,2007,2:7-11.
桂诗春.从“这个地方很郊区”谈起.语言文字应用,1995,3:24-28.
郭锐.汉语动词的过程结构.中国语文,1993,6:410-419.
郭锐.过程和非过程—汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型. 中国语文,1997,3:162-175.
郭锐.表述功能的转化和“的”字的作用.当代语言学,2000,1:37-52.
郭锐.现代汉语词类研究.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
胡附,文炼.现代汉语语法探索.北京:商务印书馆,1990.
胡明扬.动名兼类的计量考察.语文研究,1995a,2:91-99.
胡明扬.现代汉语词类问题考察.中国语文,1995b,5:381-386
胡明扬(主编).词类问题考察.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1996.
胡明扬.关于“名物化”问题.华文教学与研究,2000a,1:29-35.
胡明扬.汉语词类兼类研究.语言文字应用,2000b,1:19-24.
胡裕树,范晓.动词形容词的“名物化”和“名词化”.中国语文,1994,2:81-85.
金立鑫.关于“向心结构”定义的讨论.语文导报,1987,7:30-32.
金立鑫.句法研究中的一个基础理论问题.汉语学习,1992,5:8-17.
竟成.汉语的成句过程和时间概念的表述.语文研究, 1996,1: 1-5.
黎锦熙,刘世儒.语法再研讨—词类区分和名词.中国语文,1960,1:5-7.
黎锦熙.新著国语文法.北京:商务印书馆,1992.
李临定.现代汉语动词.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990a.
李临定.动词分类研究说略.中国语文,1990b,4:248-257.
李临定.现代汉语疑难词词典.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
李平.语言习得的联结主义模式.当代语言学,2002,3:164-175.
李泉.现代汉语“形+动态助词”考察.语言教学与研究,1997,1:98-113.
李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释.外国语言文学,2003,4:14-17.
李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释.上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
李宇明.所谓的“名物化”现象新解.华中师范大学学报(哲社版),1986,3:117-120.
李志雪.联结主义心理语言学—心理语言学研究的新方法.山东外语教学,2003,5:3-7.
李宗江.汉语中的向心结构与离心结构.解放军外国语学院学报,1991,4:46-52.
李宗江.去词汇化:“结婚”和“洗澡”由词返语.语言研究,2006,26 (4):101-106.
刘丹青.词类和词长的相关性.南京师范大学学报,1996,2:112-119.
刘顺.现代汉语名词的多视角研究.上海:学林出版社,2003.
刘顺.普通名词的时间性研究.语言教学与研究,2004,4:25-35.
刘勋宁.现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说.世界汉语教学,2002,3: 70-79.
卢英顺.词类划分:广义形态与原型理论的嫁接.戴浩一等(主编).功能主义与汉
语语法.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1994.66-76.
陆丙甫.动词名词兼类问题—也谈辞典标注词性.辞书研究,1981,1:151-155.
陆丙甫.关于语言结构内向、外向分类和核心的定义.语法研究和探索(第 3 辑).北
京:北京大学出版社,1985.338-351.
陆俭明.八十年代中国语法研究.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
陆俭明.关于词的兼类问题.中国语文,1994,1:28-34.
陆俭明.对“NP 的 VP”结构的重新认识.中国语文,2003,5:387-391.
陆镜光.试论小句在汉语语法中的地位.汉语学报,2006(3):2-14.
陆志韦.汉语的构词法.北京:科学出版社,1964.
吕冀平.汉语语法基础.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
吕叔湘.中国文法要略.北京:商务印书馆,1942.
吕叔湘.关于汉语词类的一些原则性问题.汉语语法论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1984.230-276.
吕叔湘.汉语语法分析问题.汉语语法论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1984.481-571.
吕叔湘(主编).现代汉语八百词(修订本).北京:商务印书馆,1996.
吕叔湘,朱德熙.语法修辞讲话.北京:中国青年出版社,1952.
马彪.运用统计法进行词类划界的一个尝试.中国语文,1994,5:347-369.
马庆株.汉语语义语法范畴问题.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
马庆株.顺序义对体词语法功能的影响.中国语言学报,1991,4:59-83.
马庆株.指称义动词和陈述义名词. 语法研究和探索(第 7 辑).北京:商务印书馆,1995. 139-152.
麦考莱(James D. McCawley).汉语词类归属的理据.张伯江译.国外语言学,1994,4:29-36.
孟琮等.动词用法词典.上海:上海辞书出版社,1987.
齐振海,张辉.《认知语法基础》(第一卷)导读.2004.
裘荣棠. 名动词质疑—评朱德熙先生关于名动词的说法. 汉语学习,1994,6:15-20.
任鹰.“吃食堂”与语法转喻.中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2000,3:59-67.
邵敬敏,刘焱.论名词的动态性及其鉴测方法.汉语学习,2001,6:1-6.
沈家煊.R. W. Langacker 的“认知语法”.国外语言学,1994,1:12—20.
沈家煊.类型学中的标记模式.外语教学与研究,1997a,1:1-10.
沈家煊.形容词句法功能的标记模式.中国语文,1997b,4:242-250.
沈家煊.转指和转喻.当代语言学,1999a,1:3-15.
沈家煊.不对称和标记论.南昌:江西教育出版社,1999b.
沈家煊(主编).现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
沈家煊.人工智能中的“联结主义”和语法理论.外国语,2004,3:2-9.
沈家煊,王冬梅.“N 的 V”和“参照体—目标”构式.世界汉语教学,2000,4:25-32.
施关淦.“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性.中国语文通讯,1981,4:8-12.
施关淦.现代汉语的向心结构和离心结构.中国语文,1988,4:165-273.
石定栩.名物化、名词化与“的”字结构.中国语言学论丛(第 3 辑).北京:北京语言大学出版社,2004.78-92.
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础.南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
石毓智.汉语的限定动词和非限定动词之别.世界汉语教学,2001,2:23-27
石毓智.语法的概念基础.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
史有为.词类问题的症结及其对策—汉语词类柔性处理试探.胡明扬(主编).词类
问题考察.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1996.56-92.
司富珍.汉语的标句词“的”及相关的句法问题.语言教学与研究,2002,2:35-40.
司富珍.中心语理论和汉语的 DeP.当代语言学,2004,1:26-34.
司富珍.中心语理论和“布龙菲尔德难题”—兼答周国光.当代语言学,2006,1:60-70.
宋健(主编).现代科学技术基础知识.北京:科学出版社/中共中央党校出版社,1994.
谭景春.名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题. 中国语文, 1998,5:368-377.
谭景春.词的意义、结构的意义与词典释义.中国语文, 2000,1: 69-78.
汤廷池.汉语的限定子句与非限定子句.语言暨语言学 (Language and Linguistics),2000,1(1):191-214.
王冬梅.动名互转的认知研究.北京:中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001.
王冬梅.“N 的 V”结构中 V 的性质.语言教学与研究,2002,4:55-64.
王冬梅. 动词的控制度和谓宾的名物化之间的共变关系.中国语文,2003,4:315-328.
王冬梅.动词转指名词的类型及相关解释.汉语学习,2004,4:5-11.
王洪君.汉语自指的名词化标记“之”的消失.语言学论丛(第 14 辑).北京:商务印书馆,1987.158-169.
王惠,詹卫东,俞士汶.现代汉语语义词典规范.汉语语言与计算学报(新加坡),2003,2:159-175.
王珏.现代汉语名词研究.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
王克仲.古汉语的词类活用.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1988.
王力.中国语法理论.北京:商务印书馆,1944.
王力.中国现代语法.北京:商务印书馆,1973.
王益文,张文新. 联结主义神经网络及其在心理学中的应用. 心理学动态,2001, (4):368-375.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分析—Langacker 的语篇分析观.外语教学与研究,2003,2:83-88.
王寅,严辰松.语法化的特征、动因和机制.解放军外国语学院学报,2005,4:1-6.
王寅.认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社,2005.
王寅.认知语法概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王占华.“吃食堂”的认知考察.语言教学与研究,2000,2:58-64.
温锁林,刘开瑛. 汉语名、动、形兼类词的两种鉴别方法.语文研究,1998,1:29-33.
文炼,胡附.词类划分中的几个问题.中国语文,2000,4:298-302.
吴长安.“这本书的出版”与向心结构理论难题.当代语言学,2006,3:193-204.
项梦冰.论“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性:对汉语动词、形容词“名物化”问
题的再认识.天津师范大学学报,1991,4:75-80.
邢福义.说“NP 了”句式.语文研究,1984,3:21-26.
邢福义.汉语语法学.长春:东北师范大学出版社,1996.
邢福义.“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考.语言研究,1997,2:1-10.
邢福义.词类辨难(修订本). 北京:商务印书馆,2003.
熊仲儒.零成分与汉语“名物化”.现代外语,2001,3:228-236.
徐盛桓.名动转用的语义基础.外语与外语教学,2000,1:6-9.
徐枢,谭景春.关于《现代汉语词典(第 5 版)》词类标注的说明.中国语文,2006,1:74-86.
严辰松.论“字”对汉语词汇和语法的影响.现代外语,2002,3:231-240.
严辰松.构式语法论要.解放军外国语学院学报,2006,4:6-11.
杨成凯.动词做主宾语是汉语的语法特点吗.汉语学习,1991,6:9-11.
姚振武.汉语谓词性成分名词化的原因及规律.中国语文,1996,1:31-39.
姚振武.现代汉语的“N 的 V”与上古汉语的“N 之 V”(上).语文研究,1995,2:2-9.
姚振武.现代汉语的“N 的 V”与上古汉语的“N 之 V”(下).语文研究,1995,3:26-29.
原新梅.“程度副词+N”的修辞功效.修辞学习,1997,4:32-33.
袁毓林.词类范畴的家族相似性.中国社会科学,1995,1:154-170.
袁毓林.谓词隐含及其句法后果—“的”字结构的称代规则和“的”的语法、语义功能.中国语文,1995,4:241-255.
詹卫东.“NP + 的+ VP”偏正结构在组句谋篇中的特点.语文研究,1998a,1: 16-23.
詹卫东.关于“NP+的+VP”偏正结构.汉语学习,1998b,2:24-28.
张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究.南昌:江西教育出版社,1996.
张伯江.“N 的 V”结构的构成.中国语文,1993,4:253-259.
张伯江.词类活用的功能解释.中国语文,1994,5:339-346.
张凤,高航.语义研究中的认知观.中国俄语教学,2001,1:33-41.
张凤,高航.语言类型学中的标记理论.外语论坛,2003,4:28-33.
张凤.借代的认知基础考察.外国语言文学,2004,2:25-31.
张高远.汉语“名物化”研究综述.语文学刊,2004,1:50-55.
张国宪.现代汉语形容词的典型特征.沈家煊(主编).现代汉语语法的功能、语用、
认知研究.北京:商务印书馆,2005.47-67.
张辉.汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究.外国语,2000,5:27-32.
张辉.熟语:常规化的映现模式和心理表征—熟语的认知研究之一.现代外语,2003,3:249-258.
张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式.外国语,2002,4:46-52.
张辉,承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约.外语研究,2002,6:15-19.
张辉,齐振海.《认知语法基础》(第二卷)导读.2004.
张辉,孙明智.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制.外语与外语教学,2005,3:1-6.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语的名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
张权.英语动词名词化的认知结构分析.外国语,2001,6:29-34.
张文国.古汉语的名动词类转变及其发展.北京:中华书局,2005.
张谊生. 名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词. 语言教学与研究,1996,4:57-75;1997,1:136-142.
张志公(主编).语法和语法教学.北京:人民教育出版社,1957.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论.上海:上海教育出版社,2001
赵元任.汉语口语语法.吕叔湘译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
周领顺.英汉名—动转类词对比研究.外语教学与研究,2000,5:340-344.
朱德熙,卢甲文,马真.关于动词形容词“名物化”的问题.北京大学学报,1961,4:51-64.
朱德熙.现代汉语语法研究.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
朱德熙.语法讲义.北京:商务印书馆,1982.
朱德熙.自指和转指:汉语名词化标记“的、者、之、所”的语法功能和语义功能.方言,1983,1:16-31.
朱德熙.定语和状语.上海:上海教育出版社,1984a.
朱德熙.关于向心结构的定义.中国语文,1984b,6:401-403.
朱德熙.现代汉语里的虚化动词和名动词.北京大学学报,1985a,5:1-6.
朱德熙.语法答问.北京:商务印书馆,1985b.
Barcelona, Antonio. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda Thornburg (eds.),
Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. 81-102.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). Usage-based Models of Llanguage. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In Nancy L. Stein et al (eds.), Representation, Memory, and Development: Essays in Honor of Jean Mandler. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
Biber, Douglas et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman, 1999.
Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London : Longman,1977.
Boroditsky, Lera. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 2000, 75: 1-28.
Brisard, Frank (ed.). Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Bybee, Joan, and C. L. Moder. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 1983, 59: 251-270.
Bybee, Joan. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985.
Bybee, Joan, et al. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994a.
Bybee, Joan. A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 1994b, 5: 285-305.
Bybee, Joan, and Sandra A. Thompson. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1997, 23: 378-88.
Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics, 1999, 37: 575-596.
Bybee, Joan. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 602-623.
Bybee, Joan. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Plenary address, High Desert Linguistic Society, Albuquerque, November 2004. Available at http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Bybee%20plenary.pdf.
Casad, Eugene H. (ed.). Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
Casad, Eugene H., and Gary B. Palmer (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
Chan, Majorie, and James Tai. From Nouns to Verbs: Verbalization in Chinese Dialects and East Asian Languages. Proceedings of the 6th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, 1995. 49-74.
Clark, Eve, and Herbert Clark. When nouns surfaces as verbs. Language, 1979, 55: 767-811.
Clausner, T. C., and William Croft. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 1999, 10, 1: 1-31.
Colman, Fran, and John Anderson. On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to old English. English Studies, 2004, 85 (6): 547-565.
Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 2000, 11: 175-196.
Croft, William. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Croft, William. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Croft, William. Markedness and universals: from the Prague school to typology. In Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.), Multiple perspectives on the historical dimensions of language. Munster: Nodus, 1996. 15-21.
Croft, William. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman, 2000a.
Croft, William. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Petra M. Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word
Classes. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000b. 65-102.
Croft, William. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Croft, William, and D. A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Crystal, David. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Cuyckens, Hubert et al (eds.). Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.
Denis, Michel, and M. Cocude. Scanning visual images generated from verbal description. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1989, 1: 293-307.
Dirven, René. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. 275-287.
Dowty, David. Thematic protoroles and argument selection. Language, 1991, 67: 547-619.
DuBois, John A. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. 343-366.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1985.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 113-127.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 1998, 22 (2): 133-187.
Fillmore, Charles J. The case for case. E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. 1-87.
Fillmore, Charles J. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkley Linguistic Society, 1975, 1: 123-131.
Fillmore, Charles. Frame semantics. Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 1982. 111-138.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 1988, 64: 501-538.
Frawley, William. Linguistic Semantics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
Fried, M., and Jan-Ola ?stman (eds.). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
Gentner, D. Some interesting differences between nouns and verbs. Cognition and Brain Theory, 1981, 4: 161-177.
Gentner, D. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development:. Language, Thought and Culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982. 301-334.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and H. L. Colston. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 1995, 6: 347-378.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 2003, 84: 1-15.
Givón, Talmy. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Givón, Talmy. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.
Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2003, 7: 219-24.
Grady, Joseph. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997a.
Haiman, John. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 1980, 50: 329-357.
Haiman, John (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985a.
Haiman, John. Natural Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985b.
Haiman, John. Ritualization and the development of language. William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994. 3-28.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Frederike Hunnemeyer. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Heine, Bernd. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 1980, 56: 251-99.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 1984, 60: 703-752.
Hopper, Paul. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1987, 13: 139-57. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Israel, Michael. The way constructions grow. Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 217-230.
Janssen. T. and G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Johnson, Christopher. The acquisition of the “What's X doing Y?” construction. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Vol.2. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 1997. 343-53.
Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language,1999 (75):1-34
Kosslyn, Stephen, et al. Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4: 54-60.
K?vecses,Zoltán,and Günter Radden.Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 1998, 9: 33-77.
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki, and Ronald W. Langacker. Double-subject and complex-predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 2003, 14: l-45.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, George. Cognitive Semantics. In U. Eco et al (eds.), Meaning and Representation: Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press, 1988. 119-154.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 202-251.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Langacker, Ronald W. The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics, 1981, 42: 82-135.
Langacker, Ronald W. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language, 1982, 58: 22–80.
Langacker, Ronald W. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (ed.),
Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985. 109-150.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987a.
Langacker, Ronald W. Nouns and verbs. Language, 1987b, 63: 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald W. A Usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988a. 127-161.
Langacker, Ronald W. Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar. In D. Brentari, G.
Larson and L. MacLeod (eds.), Agreement in grammatical theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1988b. 147-180.
Langacker, Ronald W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Langacker, Ronald W. The symbolic nature of cognitive grammar: The meaning of of and of of-periphrasis. In M. Pütz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992. 483-502.
Langacker, Ronald. W. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993a, 4: 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. Universals of construal. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1993b, 19: 447-463.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences, 1993c, 15: 323-355.
Langacker, Ronald W. Possession and possessive constructions. In John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995a. 51-79.
Langacker, Ronald W. Raising and transparency. Language, 1995b, 71: 1-62.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar. In I.-H. Lee (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. Seoul: Hanshin, 1995c. 149-172.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora (Typological Studies in Language 33). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 333-378.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 1997, 8: 1-32.
Langacker, Ronald W. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Erlbaum, 1998. 1-39.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammar and conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research 14). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999a.
Langacker, Ronald W. Virtual reality. Studies in the linguistic sciences, 1999b, 29 (2): 77-103.
Langacker, Ronald W. Double-subject constructions. In Bak Sung-Yun, (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4. Seoul: Hanshin, 1999c. 83-104.
Langacker, Ronald W. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (Cognitive Linguistics Research 15). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999d. 13-59.
Langacker, Ronald W. Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank and P. Koch (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (Cognitive
Linguistics Research 13). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999e. 147-175.
Langacker, Ronald W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001a, 12: 143-188.
Langacker, Ronald W. Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 2001b, 12: 7-33.
Langacker, Ronald W. The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 2001c, 5: 251-271.
Langacker, Ronald W. Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. G. Simonsen and R. T. Endresen (eds.), A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives (Cognitive Linguistics Research 16). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001d. 11-48.
Langacker, Ronald W. Remarks on the English grounding systems. In Brisard (2002), 29-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard (2002), 1-28.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics, 2003a, 20: 41-83.
Langacker Ronald W. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions. Language and Linguistics, 2003b, 2: 251-278.
Langacker, Ronald W. Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. Korean Linguistics, 2003c, 18: 1-64.
Langacker, Ronald W. One any. Korean Linguistics, 2003d, 18: 65-105.
Langacker, Ronald W. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 2004a, 11: 77-113.
Langacker, Ronald W. Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2004b, 6: 2-23.
Langacker, Ronald W. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried and H. C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005a.157-189.
Langacker, Ronald W. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá?ez and M. S. Pe?a Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005b. 101-159.
Langacker, Ronald W. Constructions and Constructional meaning. UC San Diego: manuscript, 2006.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese : A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. MacWhinney, B. The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of
Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1987. 249-308. MacWhinney, B. The Emergence of Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. Mandler, Jean. How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 1992, 99: 587-604.
Marchand, Hans. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck, 1969.
Matlock, Teenie and Paul P. Maglio. Apparent motion on the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
Matlock, Teenie. How real is fictive motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2001.
Matlock, Teenie. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 2004a, 32 (8): 1389-1400.
Matlock, Teenie. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004b. 221-248.
Matsumoto, Yo. How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996a. 359-373.
Matsumoto, Yo. Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In Fauconnier and Sweetser (1996b), 124-156.
McClelland, James L. and J. L. Elman. Interactive Processes in Speech Perception: The TRACE Model. In Rumelhart et al (1986a), Vol.2, 58-121.
McClelland, James. L. The TRACE Model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1986b, 18: 1-86.
Michaelis, L.A., and K. Lambrecht. Toward a construction-based model of language function: the case of nominal extraposition. Language, 1996, 72: 215-247.
Michaelis, Laura A. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven and J. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. 163-210.
Michaelis, L.A. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 2004, 15: 1-67.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 2003, 79: 682-707.
Ohori, Toshio. Construction grammar as a conceptual framework for linguistic typology: A case from reference tracking. In Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2005. 215-237.
Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998, 30: 755-769.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English gramma. In Antonio Barcelona (2000): 215-231.
Pütz, M., S. Niemeier, and R. Dirven (eds). Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. I: Theory and Language Acquisition; Vol. II: LanguagePedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.
Queller, K. A usage-based approach to modeling and teaching the phrasal lexicon. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, and R. Dirven (2001), 55-83.
Queller, K. Metonymic sense shift: Its origins in hearers’ abductive construal of usage in context. H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven and J.R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 23). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. 211-241.
Quirk, Randolph, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Radden, Günter, and Zoltán K?vecses. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (1999), 17-59.
Radden, Günter, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
Reddy, M. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 164-201.
Rosch, Eleanor, et al. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 7: 573-605.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. and Lorena Pérez Hernández. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 2001, 21: 321-357.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Sandra, D., and Sally Rice. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 1995, 6: 89-130.
Santibá?ez, Francisco. The object image-schema and other dependent schemas. Atlantis, 2002, 2: 183-201.
Shepard, Roger N., and Jaqueline Metzler. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 1971, 171: 701-703.
Shibatani, M. and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Sinclair, J. M. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Sinclair, John et al. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins, 1995.
Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986/1995.
Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Sweetser, Eve. Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (Cognitive Linguistics Research 15). Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. 129-162.
Tai, James H-Y. Category shifts and word-formation redundancy rules in Chinese. In H. Samuel Wang and Feng-fu Tsao (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics. Taipei: National Tsing Hua University, 1992. 1-19.
Talmy, Leonard. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 1988, 12: 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom et al. (Eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford, 1996. 211-276.
Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford, 2000a. Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept
Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000b.
Taylor, John. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Taylor, John. R. “Subjective” and “objective” readings of possessor nominals. Cognitive Linguistics, 1994, 3: 201-242.
Taylor, John R. Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon, 1996.
Taylor, John. R. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Thornburg, Linda, and Klaus-Uwe Panther. Speech act metonymies. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997. 205-219.
Tomasello, Michael. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Tomasello, Michael. The return of constructions. Review article on Goldberg (1995). Journal of Child Language, 1998, 25: 431-442.
Tomasello, Michael. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 2000, 11: 61-82.
Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Tuggy, David. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993, 4: 273-290.
Turner, Mark. Death is the Mother of Beauty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Turner, Mark. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Tyler, A., and V. Evans. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 2001, 77: 724-765.
Ungerer, F., and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman, 1996.
Van Hoek, Karen. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 1995, 71: 310-340.
Van Hoek, Karen. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, l997.
Verhagen, A. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics, 2002, 1: 13-14
Wierzbicka, Anna. Why you can have a Drink when you can’t have an Eat. Language, 1982, 4: 753-799.
Wierzbicka, Anna. Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. 311-342.
Wierzbicka, Anna. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988.
Wierzbicka, Anna. Dictionaries vs. encyclopaedias: How to draw the line. In P. W. Davis (ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. 289-315.
Zwicky, Arnold M. Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 1985, 21: 1-29.
蔡文兰.带非名词性宾语的动词.中国语文,1986,4:253-260.
陈宁萍.现代汉语名词类的扩大.中国语文,1987,5:379-389.
陈平.释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念.中国语文,1987,2:81-92.
陈平.试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则.中国语文,1994,3:161-168.
陈庆汉.“N 的 V”短语的句法、语义、语用研究综述. 华中师范大学学报,1996, 2.
陈庆汉.“N 的 V”短语中心语“V”语法性质研究述评.汉语学习,2002,5:53-57.
陈庆汉.20 世纪“N 的 V” 短语研究评析.河南大学学报 (社会科学版), 2005, 5:151-155.
陈群.谈谈名词活用的表达效果.修辞学习,1998,5:35.
陈小荷.主观量问题初探—兼谈副词“就”、“才”、“都”.世界汉语教学,1995,4:18-24.
程工.名物化与向心结构理论新探.现代外语,1999a,2:128-144.
程工.语言共性论.上海:上海外语教学出版社,1999b.
邓思颖.汉语时间词谓语句的限制条件.中国语文,2002,3:217-221.
丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话.北京:商务印书馆,1961.
范晓.VP 主语句—兼论“N 的 V”作主语. 语法研究与探索(第六辑).北京:语文出版社,1992. 176-189.
范晓.三个平面的语法观.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1996.
方光焘.语法论稿.南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
方光焘.方光焘语言学论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
方立.论语言的可分离性.外语教学与研究,1995,4:9-13.
高芳,徐盛桓.名动转用与语用推理.外国语,2000a,2:7-14.
高芳,徐盛桓.名动转用语用推理的认知策略.外语与外语教学,2000b,4:13-16.
高航.语言类型学中的词类问题.外国语言文学,2003,1:3-8.
高航.现代汉语中“子”的语法化分析.解放军外国语学院学报,2006,2:22-26.
高航,严辰松.“头”的语法化考察.外语研究,2007,2:7-11.
桂诗春.从“这个地方很郊区”谈起.语言文字应用,1995,3:24-28.
郭锐.汉语动词的过程结构.中国语文,1993,6:410-419.
郭锐.过程和非过程—汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型. 中国语文,1997,3:162-175.
郭锐.表述功能的转化和“的”字的作用.当代语言学,2000,1:37-52.
郭锐.现代汉语词类研究.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
胡附,文炼.现代汉语语法探索.北京:商务印书馆,1990.
胡明扬.动名兼类的计量考察.语文研究,1995a,2:91-99.
胡明扬.现代汉语词类问题考察.中国语文,1995b,5:381-386
胡明扬(主编).词类问题考察.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1996.
胡明扬.关于“名物化”问题.华文教学与研究,2000a,1:29-35.
胡明扬.汉语词类兼类研究.语言文字应用,2000b,1:19-24.
胡裕树,范晓.动词形容词的“名物化”和“名词化”.中国语文,1994,2:81-85.
金立鑫.关于“向心结构”定义的讨论.语文导报,1987,7:30-32.
金立鑫.句法研究中的一个基础理论问题.汉语学习,1992,5:8-17.
竟成.汉语的成句过程和时间概念的表述.语文研究, 1996,1: 1-5.
黎锦熙,刘世儒.语法再研讨—词类区分和名词.中国语文,1960,1:5-7.
黎锦熙.新著国语文法.北京:商务印书馆,1992.
李临定.现代汉语动词.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990a.
李临定.动词分类研究说略.中国语文,1990b,4:248-257.
李临定.现代汉语疑难词词典.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
李平.语言习得的联结主义模式.当代语言学,2002,3:164-175.
李泉.现代汉语“形+动态助词”考察.语言教学与研究,1997,1:98-113.
李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释.外国语言文学,2003,4:14-17.
李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释.上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
李宇明.所谓的“名物化”现象新解.华中师范大学学报(哲社版),1986,3:117-120.
李志雪.联结主义心理语言学—心理语言学研究的新方法.山东外语教学,2003,5:3-7.
李宗江.汉语中的向心结构与离心结构.解放军外国语学院学报,1991,4:46-52.
李宗江.去词汇化:“结婚”和“洗澡”由词返语.语言研究,2006,26 (4):101-106.
刘丹青.词类和词长的相关性.南京师范大学学报,1996,2:112-119.
刘顺.现代汉语名词的多视角研究.上海:学林出版社,2003.
刘顺.普通名词的时间性研究.语言教学与研究,2004,4:25-35.
刘勋宁.现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说.世界汉语教学,2002,3: 70-79.
卢英顺.词类划分:广义形态与原型理论的嫁接.戴浩一等(主编).功能主义与汉
语语法.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1994.66-76.
陆丙甫.动词名词兼类问题—也谈辞典标注词性.辞书研究,1981,1:151-155.
陆丙甫.关于语言结构内向、外向分类和核心的定义.语法研究和探索(第 3 辑).北
京:北京大学出版社,1985.338-351.
陆俭明.八十年代中国语法研究.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
陆俭明.关于词的兼类问题.中国语文,1994,1:28-34.
陆俭明.对“NP 的 VP”结构的重新认识.中国语文,2003,5:387-391.
陆镜光.试论小句在汉语语法中的地位.汉语学报,2006(3):2-14.
陆志韦.汉语的构词法.北京:科学出版社,1964.
吕冀平.汉语语法基础.北京:商务印书馆,1999.
吕叔湘.中国文法要略.北京:商务印书馆,1942.
吕叔湘.关于汉语词类的一些原则性问题.汉语语法论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1984.230-276.
吕叔湘.汉语语法分析问题.汉语语法论文集.北京:商务印书馆,1984.481-571.
吕叔湘(主编).现代汉语八百词(修订本).北京:商务印书馆,1996.
吕叔湘,朱德熙.语法修辞讲话.北京:中国青年出版社,1952.
马彪.运用统计法进行词类划界的一个尝试.中国语文,1994,5:347-369.
马庆株.汉语语义语法范畴问题.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
马庆株.顺序义对体词语法功能的影响.中国语言学报,1991,4:59-83.
马庆株.指称义动词和陈述义名词. 语法研究和探索(第 7 辑).北京:商务印书馆,1995. 139-152.
麦考莱(James D. McCawley).汉语词类归属的理据.张伯江译.国外语言学,1994,4:29-36.
孟琮等.动词用法词典.上海:上海辞书出版社,1987.
齐振海,张辉.《认知语法基础》(第一卷)导读.2004.
裘荣棠. 名动词质疑—评朱德熙先生关于名动词的说法. 汉语学习,1994,6:15-20.
任鹰.“吃食堂”与语法转喻.中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2000,3:59-67.
邵敬敏,刘焱.论名词的动态性及其鉴测方法.汉语学习,2001,6:1-6.
沈家煊.R. W. Langacker 的“认知语法”.国外语言学,1994,1:12—20.
沈家煊.类型学中的标记模式.外语教学与研究,1997a,1:1-10.
沈家煊.形容词句法功能的标记模式.中国语文,1997b,4:242-250.
沈家煊.转指和转喻.当代语言学,1999a,1:3-15.
沈家煊.不对称和标记论.南昌:江西教育出版社,1999b.
沈家煊(主编).现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
沈家煊.人工智能中的“联结主义”和语法理论.外国语,2004,3:2-9.
沈家煊,王冬梅.“N 的 V”和“参照体—目标”构式.世界汉语教学,2000,4:25-32.
施关淦.“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性.中国语文通讯,1981,4:8-12.
施关淦.现代汉语的向心结构和离心结构.中国语文,1988,4:165-273.
石定栩.名物化、名词化与“的”字结构.中国语言学论丛(第 3 辑).北京:北京语言大学出版社,2004.78-92.
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础.南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
石毓智.汉语的限定动词和非限定动词之别.世界汉语教学,2001,2:23-27
石毓智.语法的概念基础.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
史有为.词类问题的症结及其对策—汉语词类柔性处理试探.胡明扬(主编).词类
问题考察.北京:北京语言学院出版社,1996.56-92.
司富珍.汉语的标句词“的”及相关的句法问题.语言教学与研究,2002,2:35-40.
司富珍.中心语理论和汉语的 DeP.当代语言学,2004,1:26-34.
司富珍.中心语理论和“布龙菲尔德难题”—兼答周国光.当代语言学,2006,1:60-70.
宋健(主编).现代科学技术基础知识.北京:科学出版社/中共中央党校出版社,1994.
谭景春.名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题. 中国语文, 1998,5:368-377.
谭景春.词的意义、结构的意义与词典释义.中国语文, 2000,1: 69-78.
汤廷池.汉语的限定子句与非限定子句.语言暨语言学 (Language and Linguistics),2000,1(1):191-214.
王冬梅.动名互转的认知研究.北京:中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001.
王冬梅.“N 的 V”结构中 V 的性质.语言教学与研究,2002,4:55-64.
王冬梅. 动词的控制度和谓宾的名物化之间的共变关系.中国语文,2003,4:315-328.
王冬梅.动词转指名词的类型及相关解释.汉语学习,2004,4:5-11.
王洪君.汉语自指的名词化标记“之”的消失.语言学论丛(第 14 辑).北京:商务印书馆,1987.158-169.
王惠,詹卫东,俞士汶.现代汉语语义词典规范.汉语语言与计算学报(新加坡),2003,2:159-175.
王珏.现代汉语名词研究.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
王克仲.古汉语的词类活用.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1988.
王力.中国语法理论.北京:商务印书馆,1944.
王力.中国现代语法.北京:商务印书馆,1973.
王益文,张文新. 联结主义神经网络及其在心理学中的应用. 心理学动态,2001, (4):368-375.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分析—Langacker 的语篇分析观.外语教学与研究,2003,2:83-88.
王寅,严辰松.语法化的特征、动因和机制.解放军外国语学院学报,2005,4:1-6.
王寅.认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社,2005.
王寅.认知语法概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王占华.“吃食堂”的认知考察.语言教学与研究,2000,2:58-64.
温锁林,刘开瑛. 汉语名、动、形兼类词的两种鉴别方法.语文研究,1998,1:29-33.
文炼,胡附.词类划分中的几个问题.中国语文,2000,4:298-302.
吴长安.“这本书的出版”与向心结构理论难题.当代语言学,2006,3:193-204.
项梦冰.论“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性:对汉语动词、形容词“名物化”问
题的再认识.天津师范大学学报,1991,4:75-80.
邢福义.说“NP 了”句式.语文研究,1984,3:21-26.
邢福义.汉语语法学.长春:东北师范大学出版社,1996.
邢福义.“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考.语言研究,1997,2:1-10.
邢福义.词类辨难(修订本). 北京:商务印书馆,2003.
熊仲儒.零成分与汉语“名物化”.现代外语,2001,3:228-236.
徐盛桓.名动转用的语义基础.外语与外语教学,2000,1:6-9.
徐枢,谭景春.关于《现代汉语词典(第 5 版)》词类标注的说明.中国语文,2006,1:74-86.
严辰松.论“字”对汉语词汇和语法的影响.现代外语,2002,3:231-240.
严辰松.构式语法论要.解放军外国语学院学报,2006,4:6-11.
杨成凯.动词做主宾语是汉语的语法特点吗.汉语学习,1991,6:9-11.
姚振武.汉语谓词性成分名词化的原因及规律.中国语文,1996,1:31-39.
姚振武.现代汉语的“N 的 V”与上古汉语的“N 之 V”(上).语文研究,1995,2:2-9.
姚振武.现代汉语的“N 的 V”与上古汉语的“N 之 V”(下).语文研究,1995,3:26-29.
原新梅.“程度副词+N”的修辞功效.修辞学习,1997,4:32-33.
袁毓林.词类范畴的家族相似性.中国社会科学,1995,1:154-170.
袁毓林.谓词隐含及其句法后果—“的”字结构的称代规则和“的”的语法、语义功能.中国语文,1995,4:241-255.
詹卫东.“NP + 的+ VP”偏正结构在组句谋篇中的特点.语文研究,1998a,1: 16-23.
詹卫东.关于“NP+的+VP”偏正结构.汉语学习,1998b,2:24-28.
张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究.南昌:江西教育出版社,1996.
张伯江.“N 的 V”结构的构成.中国语文,1993,4:253-259.
张伯江.词类活用的功能解释.中国语文,1994,5:339-346.
张凤,高航.语义研究中的认知观.中国俄语教学,2001,1:33-41.
张凤,高航.语言类型学中的标记理论.外语论坛,2003,4:28-33.
张凤.借代的认知基础考察.外国语言文学,2004,2:25-31.
张高远.汉语“名物化”研究综述.语文学刊,2004,1:50-55.
张国宪.现代汉语形容词的典型特征.沈家煊(主编).现代汉语语法的功能、语用、
认知研究.北京:商务印书馆,2005.47-67.
张辉.汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究.外国语,2000,5:27-32.
张辉.熟语:常规化的映现模式和心理表征—熟语的认知研究之一.现代外语,2003,3:249-258.
张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式.外国语,2002,4:46-52.
张辉,承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约.外语研究,2002,6:15-19.
张辉,齐振海.《认知语法基础》(第二卷)导读.2004.
张辉,孙明智.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制.外语与外语教学,2005,3:1-6.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语的名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
张权.英语动词名词化的认知结构分析.外国语,2001,6:29-34.
张文国.古汉语的名动词类转变及其发展.北京:中华书局,2005.
张谊生. 名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词. 语言教学与研究,1996,4:57-75;1997,1:136-142.
张志公(主编).语法和语法教学.北京:人民教育出版社,1957.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论.上海:上海教育出版社,2001
赵元任.汉语口语语法.吕叔湘译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
周领顺.英汉名—动转类词对比研究.外语教学与研究,2000,5:340-344.
朱德熙,卢甲文,马真.关于动词形容词“名物化”的问题.北京大学学报,1961,4:51-64.
朱德熙.现代汉语语法研究.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
朱德熙.语法讲义.北京:商务印书馆,1982.
朱德熙.自指和转指:汉语名词化标记“的、者、之、所”的语法功能和语义功能.方言,1983,1:16-31.
朱德熙.定语和状语.上海:上海教育出版社,1984a.
朱德熙.关于向心结构的定义.中国语文,1984b,6:401-403.
朱德熙.现代汉语里的虚化动词和名动词.北京大学学报,1985a,5:1-6.
朱德熙.语法答问.北京:商务印书馆,1985b.