汉英模糊量表达对比研究
|
摘要
本文运用对比语言学的方法对汉英两种语言中不同形式的模糊量进行结构形式、语义特征、语用文化方面的对比研究。通过共性特征的总结,找出影响模糊量模糊性的各种因素,进一步挖掘出模糊的本质特性；通过相异之处的分析,探讨文化因素、语用因素和语言内部因素对模糊量表达和使用的影响。
本文将汉英模糊量分为两大类：数量的模糊和程度量的模糊。数量的模糊包括三小类：数值形式模糊量、复数模糊量和非数值形式模糊量；程度量的模糊分为两小类：程度副词的模糊表量和形容词的模糊表量。不同形式模糊量的模糊度排列顺序(由低到高)如下：数值形式模糊量<复数模糊量<非数值形式模糊量、程度模糊量。
通过对比,本文发现汉英模糊量的模糊性特征大致相似,影响模糊量的因素不同,模糊度就不同。关于数量的模糊,有没有精确参照量、边界的确定性和语义的变异性是区别数值形式模糊量和复数量模糊性高低的重要因素；语义程度的变异性、修饰对象的模糊性和参照量的主观性是导致非数值形式模糊量比复数量模糊性更高的重要因素。程度量的模糊性和非数值形式模糊量一样,程度量对所修饰对象的依赖性、所修饰对象的抽象性和程度的主观性是决定程度量模糊性最高的重要因素。汉英中、高量程度副词比极量、低量和过量程度副词更模糊,主观性最强的品质属性类形容词比其他非定量形容词更模糊。
汉英模糊量的组合方式和语义特征大致相似：(1)数值形式模糊量中模糊限制词的语义特征都可以分三类：方位模糊限制词、估测类模糊限制词、“多少”类模糊限制词。汉英中都有界限在“二到十”的复数模糊小量,都有十进制单位构成的复数大量和复数极大量。汉英中都有很多“-／a+单位词或名词”构成的非数值形式模糊量。(2)汉英绝对程度副词的表量都是多级的,只是划分的等级越多,等级之间的界限越模糊；根据数量特征的不同,形容词都可以分为两大类：非定量形容词和定量形容词。具有描述功能的非定量形容词修饰所指具体的名词时,会通过名词影响和人为规定向精确转化。正负值形容词和极限类形容词都能使客观具体名词的语义变得精确或相对确定。(3)精确数词的虚指和模糊是不一样的,虚指数词没有确定的范围,没有组合性特征；而模糊数词有相对确定的范围,而且具有组合性特征。(4)时间的模糊都是两种语言中最容易模糊的对象。位于数量结构之后的模糊限制词可以使数词模糊,也可以使单位词模糊。
从语用上来看,虽然汉英中有很多模糊量的语义近似,但语用特征却不一样,有些只能出现在书面语体中,有些一般只出现在口语语体中。另外,文化因素对模糊量的使用场合有很大的影响。
汉语模糊量的特殊性体现在：汉语模糊限制词的位置更灵活,而且汉语零头模糊量比英语更发达。程度副词“很”表量的模糊性和句子的自足性导致其程度的磨损。汉语状态形容词的表量比性质形容词更模糊。
在总结了汉英模糊量的模糊性特征、结构特征、语义特征、语用文化特征四个方面的共性和个性之后,得出结论：汉英模糊量的共性特征大于个性特征。汉英模糊量共性特征的研究成果有利于进一步认清模糊的本质,对语言中其他模糊现象的研究也有一定的参考价值,而模糊量个性特征的研究对人们跨文化交际和第二语言教学具有重要的指导意义。
The study compared different kinds of vague quantities between Chinese and English on four aspects:structure of vague quantities, semantics, pragmatics and cultural perspective. According to the summary of the common place of the vague quantities in two language, the factors to the vagueness of quantities were found, the quality of language vagueness was discovered much further. By analyzing differences, it was shown that how culture, pragmatics and native language structures have effect on the using and understanding of vague quantities.
Vague quantities were categorized into two big parts:vague quantifiers and vague quantities of gradabilities; Vague quantifiers were divided into three small parts: approximating quantifiers with numbers, plural quantifiers and approximating quantifiers without number; Vague quantities of gradabilities were divided into two small parts:vague quantity of degree adverb and vague quantity of adjective. The order of the vagueness of different kinds of quantities from low to high is as following:Approximating Quantifiers with Numbers The result of the study showed that the property of vague quantities in two languages is very similar, the factors to the different vagueness of quantities are the same. For vague quantifiers, the accuracy of reference, the accuracy of boundary and the variation of meaning have influence on distinguishing the vagueness of Approximating Quantifiers with Numbers and Plural Quantifiers; Objectivity or subjectivity of the reference, variation of the meaning and high dependence on the modification were used to distinguish the vagueness of Plural Quantifiers and Approximating Quantifiers without Number. The vagueness property of Quantities of Gradabilities was similar to Approximating Quantifiers without Number; the abstract of modification, high dependence on modification and subjectivity of the degree of adverbs caused the strong vagueness. Extreme degree, low degree and excessive degree adverbs were more accurate than Medium and high degree adverbs; With the most strong subjectivity, quality and property adjective were more vague than other adjectives.
The structure and semantics of two different language have much in common:(1) there are three different kinds of approximators in Approximating Quantifiers with Numbers:Orientation approximators, estimate approximators and "more or less" approximators; small plural quantities were both from two to ten; large plural quantities both consist of decimal units; "yi/a+Classifier or Noun" was an important structure both in English and Chinese. (2)Degree of the adverbs was multilevel, more levels in the degree of adverbs more vague; Based on the difference of quantity property, adjectives were classified into two types:quantitative adjectives and non-quantitative adjectives. Non-quantitative adjectives with classification function on the effect of object denotation noun and manmade prescriptive rules can become more accurate. Polarity adjectives and utmost adjectives can make the meaning of noun phrase accurate. (3) non-empty denotation number and approximating number were different:the boundary of non-empty denotation number was vague, but approximating number has accurate boundary; non-empty denotation number do not combine with other quantities, but approximating number can be a component in an approximation. (4)Time is the most vague noun both in two languages, approximators behind the quantities modified the numbers and classifiers when the number was less than ten or equal to one.
In pragmatics, although the meaning of vague quantities were similar, the context was different, some vague quantities were used in formal context, some in informal context. Culture was also an important factor to the use of vague quantities.
The particularity of Chinese vague quantities showed that:the approximators were more complicated, and Chinese vague oddment quantities has more varieties than English. Caused by high degree of vagueness and sentence-suffiency degree adverb "hen" become low degree adverb. State Adjectives were more vague than Qualifying Adjectives in Chinese.
According to comparison and analysis on four aspects:vagueness feature, structure, semantics and pragmatics, it is concluded that the common between Chinese and English was much more than particularity. The result of common study in vagueness of quantities was valuable for developing essence of language vagueness and providing reference for other language vagueness; the study in particularity would be valuable for the language teaching and cross-cultural communication.
本文将汉英模糊量分为两大类：数量的模糊和程度量的模糊。数量的模糊包括三小类：数值形式模糊量、复数模糊量和非数值形式模糊量；程度量的模糊分为两小类：程度副词的模糊表量和形容词的模糊表量。不同形式模糊量的模糊度排列顺序(由低到高)如下：数值形式模糊量<复数模糊量<非数值形式模糊量、程度模糊量。
通过对比,本文发现汉英模糊量的模糊性特征大致相似,影响模糊量的因素不同,模糊度就不同。关于数量的模糊,有没有精确参照量、边界的确定性和语义的变异性是区别数值形式模糊量和复数量模糊性高低的重要因素；语义程度的变异性、修饰对象的模糊性和参照量的主观性是导致非数值形式模糊量比复数量模糊性更高的重要因素。程度量的模糊性和非数值形式模糊量一样,程度量对所修饰对象的依赖性、所修饰对象的抽象性和程度的主观性是决定程度量模糊性最高的重要因素。汉英中、高量程度副词比极量、低量和过量程度副词更模糊,主观性最强的品质属性类形容词比其他非定量形容词更模糊。
汉英模糊量的组合方式和语义特征大致相似：(1)数值形式模糊量中模糊限制词的语义特征都可以分三类：方位模糊限制词、估测类模糊限制词、“多少”类模糊限制词。汉英中都有界限在“二到十”的复数模糊小量,都有十进制单位构成的复数大量和复数极大量。汉英中都有很多“-／a+单位词或名词”构成的非数值形式模糊量。(2)汉英绝对程度副词的表量都是多级的,只是划分的等级越多,等级之间的界限越模糊；根据数量特征的不同,形容词都可以分为两大类：非定量形容词和定量形容词。具有描述功能的非定量形容词修饰所指具体的名词时,会通过名词影响和人为规定向精确转化。正负值形容词和极限类形容词都能使客观具体名词的语义变得精确或相对确定。(3)精确数词的虚指和模糊是不一样的,虚指数词没有确定的范围,没有组合性特征；而模糊数词有相对确定的范围,而且具有组合性特征。(4)时间的模糊都是两种语言中最容易模糊的对象。位于数量结构之后的模糊限制词可以使数词模糊,也可以使单位词模糊。
从语用上来看,虽然汉英中有很多模糊量的语义近似,但语用特征却不一样,有些只能出现在书面语体中,有些一般只出现在口语语体中。另外,文化因素对模糊量的使用场合有很大的影响。
汉语模糊量的特殊性体现在：汉语模糊限制词的位置更灵活,而且汉语零头模糊量比英语更发达。程度副词“很”表量的模糊性和句子的自足性导致其程度的磨损。汉语状态形容词的表量比性质形容词更模糊。
在总结了汉英模糊量的模糊性特征、结构特征、语义特征、语用文化特征四个方面的共性和个性之后,得出结论：汉英模糊量的共性特征大于个性特征。汉英模糊量共性特征的研究成果有利于进一步认清模糊的本质,对语言中其他模糊现象的研究也有一定的参考价值,而模糊量个性特征的研究对人们跨文化交际和第二语言教学具有重要的指导意义。
The study compared different kinds of vague quantities between Chinese and English on four aspects:structure of vague quantities, semantics, pragmatics and cultural perspective. According to the summary of the common place of the vague quantities in two language, the factors to the vagueness of quantities were found, the quality of language vagueness was discovered much further. By analyzing differences, it was shown that how culture, pragmatics and native language structures have effect on the using and understanding of vague quantities.
Vague quantities were categorized into two big parts:vague quantifiers and vague quantities of gradabilities; Vague quantifiers were divided into three small parts: approximating quantifiers with numbers, plural quantifiers and approximating quantifiers without number; Vague quantities of gradabilities were divided into two small parts:vague quantity of degree adverb and vague quantity of adjective. The order of the vagueness of different kinds of quantities from low to high is as following:Approximating Quantifiers with Numbers
The structure and semantics of two different language have much in common:(1) there are three different kinds of approximators in Approximating Quantifiers with Numbers:Orientation approximators, estimate approximators and "more or less" approximators; small plural quantities were both from two to ten; large plural quantities both consist of decimal units; "yi/a+Classifier or Noun" was an important structure both in English and Chinese. (2)Degree of the adverbs was multilevel, more levels in the degree of adverbs more vague; Based on the difference of quantity property, adjectives were classified into two types:quantitative adjectives and non-quantitative adjectives. Non-quantitative adjectives with classification function on the effect of object denotation noun and manmade prescriptive rules can become more accurate. Polarity adjectives and utmost adjectives can make the meaning of noun phrase accurate. (3) non-empty denotation number and approximating number were different:the boundary of non-empty denotation number was vague, but approximating number has accurate boundary; non-empty denotation number do not combine with other quantities, but approximating number can be a component in an approximation. (4)Time is the most vague noun both in two languages, approximators behind the quantities modified the numbers and classifiers when the number was less than ten or equal to one.
In pragmatics, although the meaning of vague quantities were similar, the context was different, some vague quantities were used in formal context, some in informal context. Culture was also an important factor to the use of vague quantities.
The particularity of Chinese vague quantities showed that:the approximators were more complicated, and Chinese vague oddment quantities has more varieties than English. Caused by high degree of vagueness and sentence-suffiency degree adverb "hen" become low degree adverb. State Adjectives were more vague than Qualifying Adjectives in Chinese.
According to comparison and analysis on four aspects:vagueness feature, structure, semantics and pragmatics, it is concluded that the common between Chinese and English was much more than particularity. The result of common study in vagueness of quantities was valuable for developing essence of language vagueness and providing reference for other language vagueness; the study in particularity would be valuable for the language teaching and cross-cultural communication.
引文
[1]Amy Y. Wang & Scott Piao. Translating Vagueness? A Study on Translations of Vague Quantifiers in an English-Chinese Parallel Corpus[C], Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference,2007.
[2]石安石.模糊语义及其模糊度[J].中国语文,1988(1)
[3]李元胜.语用模糊的认知分析[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2001(1).
[4]李秋梅.关于语用模糊的再思考-兼与语义模糊相对比[J].山东外语教学,2003(1)
[5]肖跃田.数字模糊语义及文化意象的解读与英译[J].外语教学,2008(4)
[6]胡健.试论模糊语义的特征[J].安徽大学学报(社科版),2010(6)
[7]夏江陵.也谈模糊语言学[J].语文学习,1985(2)
[8]王希杰.模糊理论和修辞[A].《修辞学研究》第2辑[M],安徽：安徽教育出版社,1983.
[9]伍铁平.从委婉语的机制看模糊理论的解释能力[J].外国语,1989(3)
[10]何自然.模糊限制语与言语交际[J].外国语,1985(3)
[11]何自然.浅论语用含糊[J].外国语,1990年(3)
[12]何自然.再论语用含糊[J].外国语,2000(1)
[13]黎千驹.论得体原则与模糊语义的语用功能[J].修辞学习,2006(3)
[14]俞东明.语法歧义和语用模糊对研究[J].外国语,1997(06)
[15]符达维.模糊语义问题辨述[J].中国语文,1990(2)
[16]伍铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999年11月第一版.
[17]Lakoff, G.'hedges:a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concetps'[J]. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1973.
[18]吴世雄,陈维振.范畴理论的发展及其对认知语言学的贡献[J],外国语,2004(4)
[19]Smithson, Micheel. Fuzzy Set Analysis is for Behavioral and Social Science[M]. New York:Springer-Verlag New York Inc,1987.
[20]许余龙.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,27-39页,1992年.
[21]Joanna Channell. Vague Language[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001年2月。
[22]Burns.L.C. Vagueness—An Inversitigation into Natural Languages and the Sorites Paradox. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1991.
[23]张乔.模糊语义学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004年4月.
[24]Moxey, L.M. A Psychological Investigation of the Use and Interpretation of English Quantifiers. Ph.D thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, U.K.1986.
[25]Moxey, L.M.& A.J.Stanford'Quantifiers and focus'[J]. Journal of Semantics. 1987.
[26]Moxey, L.M & A.J.Stanford' prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers'[J]. European Journal of Cognitive psychology 5(1),1993a.
[27]Moxey, L.M & A.J.Stanford Communicating Quantities-----A Psyological Perspective[M]. Hove(U.K.):Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd,1993b.
[28]Prince, E.F., J.Frader & C. Bosk.'On hedging in physician-physician discourse'. Paper presented at the AAAL Symposium on Applied Linguistics in Medicine. San Antonio, TX,1980.
[29]文旭.浅论英汉数词的模糊性[J].外语学刊,1994年(2).
[30]徐宜良.英汉数字模糊语义的对比研究[J].现代语文,2007(3)
[31]包惠南.汉语数字的模糊语义与翻译[J].辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版),2001(4)
[32]陈琳霞.英汉语数字修辞的对比研究[J].攀枝花学院学报(综合版),2005(2).
[33]马中夫.英汉数词虚指比较[J].湖南教育学院学报,1999(1).
[34]何杰.现代汉语量词研究[M].北京：民族出版社,2000年.
[35]杨娟.现代汉语模糊量研究[博士学位论文].南京师范大学,2007年.
[36]吕叔湘.试论表概数的“来”[J].中国语文,1957a(4).
[37]江蓝生.概数词“来”的历史考察[J].中国语文,1984(2).
[38]邢福义.“来”义级层的多个体涵量[J].中国语文,2000(1).
[39]王改改.概数词“来”语义调查和研究[J].汉语学习,2001(6).
[40]吕叔湘.再说“来”以及“多”和“半”[J].中国语文,1957b(9).
[41]李宇明.论约数词语[J].从语义信息到类型比较[A].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,2001.
[42]沈庶英.谈约量时间词[J].世界汉语教学,2000(1)
[43]殷志平.也谈约量时间词[J].世界汉语语教学,2002(4)
[44]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
[45]石安石.语义的概括性和模糊性[A].语义研究[M],北京：语文出版社,1998年.
[46]陈融.格赖斯的会话含义学说[J].外国语,1985(3)
[47]Roy A. Sorensen, A vague domenstration[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy Volume 23:507-522,2000.
[48]Ull mann. S. Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.1962.
[49]Henry Jackman. Temporal Externalism and Epistemic Theories of Vagueness[J]. Philpsophical Studies,117(1-2):79-94,2004.
[50]Williamson. T. Vagueness[M]. London:routledge,1994,.
[51]Israel Scheffler. Beyond the Letter:A Philosophical Inquiry into Amiguity[J]. Vagueness and Meaphor in Language,1979.
[52]石安石.模糊语义再议[J].中国语文,1991(5)
[53]庞建荣.模糊语言及其语境依赖性[J].外语与外语教学,2008(7)
[54]Kempson. R.M. Semantic Theory[M]. Cambrige(U.K.):Cambridge University Press,1977.
[55]Lyons, J. Language and Linguistics[M]. Cambridge (U.K.):Cambrige Universtiy Press,1981.
[56]蒋勇.虚指的通指义和极向性[J].语言教学与研究,2006第1期.
[57]Zadeh, L. A'A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets'[J]. Cogtition 12,1982.
[58]张国宪.形容词的记量[J].世界汉语教学,1996(4)
[59]李宇明.数量词语与主观量[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),1999(6).
[60]刘丽虹.张积家.时间的空间隐喻对汉语母语者时间认知的影响[J].外语教学与研究,2009(4).
[61]张谊生.试说概数助词“把”[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2001(3).
[62]石毓智.表物体形状的量词的认知基础[J].语言教学与研究,2001(1).
[63]李善熙.汉语“主观量”的表达研究[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院研究生院,2003年6月.
[64]Sadock,J.M.'Truth and approximations'[J]. Berkeley linguistic Society Papers 3, 1977.
[65]李冀宏,杨玉娟.认知域与名词的可数性[J],外语教学,2008(4)
[66]Heine, B., Claudi, U.& Hunnemeyer F. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.1991.
[67]吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[68]Trick, L.M.& Pylyshyn, Z. What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention:Evidence for preattentive Processing[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance (vol.19, pp.331-351).1993.
[69]Mandler, G. & Shebo, B.J.,Subitizing:An Analysis of its Component Process[J], Journal of Experimental Psychology:General (vol.11, pp1-22).1982
[70]何自然.语用三论：关联论·顺应论·模因论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2007.
[71]张谊生.试论主观量标记“没”、“不”、“好”[J].中国语文,2006(2)
[72]石安石.语义研究[M].北京：语文出版社,1998：167-191.
[73]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”与句子名词的“有标性”[J].当代语言学,2001(4)
[74]Robin Clark & Murray Grossman, Number sense and quantifier interpretation[J]. Springer Netherlands,Volume 26 NO.1,2007
[75]李先银.表物体量时“数+度量词+物体”与“数+容器+物体”的差异[A].似同实异：汉语近义表达方式的认知语用分析[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社2002年.
[76]郭先珍.现代汉语量词词典[M].北京：语文出版社,2002年.
[77]何英玉.语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,226页,2005年。
[78]宋教才.不定量词“点儿”和“些”比较[J].语言教学与研究,1982,(3).
[79]吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006年版。
[80]张桂宾.相对程度副词与绝对程度副词[J].华东师范大学学报(哲社版),1997(2)
[81]蔺璜,郭姝慧.程度副词的特点范围与分类[J].山西大学学报(哲社版),2003(2)
[82]韩容洙.现代汉语的程度副词[J].汉语学习,2000(2)
[83]周小兵.论现代汉语的程度副词[J].中国语文,1995(2)
[84]张谊生.现代汉语副词研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2000.
[85]黄瑞红.英语程度副词的等级数量含意[J].外语教学与研究,2008(3).
[86]Klein H.Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related languages[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
[87]易仲良.论级阶数量含义的语用功能[J].外国语,1994(3).
[88]黄南松.试论短语自成句所应具备的若干语法范畴[J].中国语文,1994(6).
[89]孔令达.影响汉语句子自足的语言形式[J].中国语文,1994(6).
[90]单韵鸣.副词“真”和“很”的用法比较[J].汉语学习,2004年(6).
[91]吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982版.
[92]储泽祥,肖扬,曾庆香.通比性的“很”字结构[J].世界汉语教学,1999(1).
[93]徐建宏.试论程度副词的对外汉语教学[J].语言文字应用,2006(2).
[94]朱德熙.现代汉语形容词研究[J].语言研究,1956(1).
[95]张国宪.现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[96]谭景春.名形词类转变的语义基础和及相关问题[J].中国语文,1998(5).
[97]石毓智.形容词的数量特征及其对句法行为的影响[J].世界汉语教学,2003年(2).
[98]李宇东.胡雪琴.英语形容词分类漫谈[J].西江大学学报,1998(3).
[99]肖凌猛.从英语形容词看英语语义结构[J].外语与外语教学,2000(3).
[100]田定远.和凤琳.英语形容词的语义功能及基本理论[J].兰州大学学报,1999(2).
[101]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学出版,1998.
[102]沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995年(5).
[103]Zadeh, L.A.'A fuzzy-set theoretic interpretation of hedges'[J], Journal of Cybernetics 2:4-34.1972
[104]Horn, L. R.1989. The Natural History of Negation [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[105]Chang In-Bong. Small Quantities and Politeness in Contemporary Korean:jokeum and jom[J]. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale,2005,(2).
[106]钱兴地.当代汉语人名称呼语社会性探微[J].太原师范学院学报,2007(2).
[107]Croft, W. "Modern Syntactic Typoloyg"[M]. in Shibatani and Bynon(eds): 85-144,1995.
[108]J. Sanford & M. Moxey. New perspectives on the expression of quantity[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 12:PP240-243,2003.
[109]程工.语言共性论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[110]李宇凤.程度副词句法语用特点的调查研究——兼论程度副词量性特征与其句法语用特征的对应[J].汉语学习,2007(2).
[2]石安石.模糊语义及其模糊度[J].中国语文,1988(1)
[3]李元胜.语用模糊的认知分析[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2001(1).
[4]李秋梅.关于语用模糊的再思考-兼与语义模糊相对比[J].山东外语教学,2003(1)
[5]肖跃田.数字模糊语义及文化意象的解读与英译[J].外语教学,2008(4)
[6]胡健.试论模糊语义的特征[J].安徽大学学报(社科版),2010(6)
[7]夏江陵.也谈模糊语言学[J].语文学习,1985(2)
[8]王希杰.模糊理论和修辞[A].《修辞学研究》第2辑[M],安徽：安徽教育出版社,1983.
[9]伍铁平.从委婉语的机制看模糊理论的解释能力[J].外国语,1989(3)
[10]何自然.模糊限制语与言语交际[J].外国语,1985(3)
[11]何自然.浅论语用含糊[J].外国语,1990年(3)
[12]何自然.再论语用含糊[J].外国语,2000(1)
[13]黎千驹.论得体原则与模糊语义的语用功能[J].修辞学习,2006(3)
[14]俞东明.语法歧义和语用模糊对研究[J].外国语,1997(06)
[15]符达维.模糊语义问题辨述[J].中国语文,1990(2)
[16]伍铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999年11月第一版.
[17]Lakoff, G.'hedges:a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concetps'[J]. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1973.
[18]吴世雄,陈维振.范畴理论的发展及其对认知语言学的贡献[J],外国语,2004(4)
[19]Smithson, Micheel. Fuzzy Set Analysis is for Behavioral and Social Science[M]. New York:Springer-Verlag New York Inc,1987.
[20]许余龙.对比语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,27-39页,1992年.
[21]Joanna Channell. Vague Language[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001年2月。
[22]Burns.L.C. Vagueness—An Inversitigation into Natural Languages and the Sorites Paradox. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1991.
[23]张乔.模糊语义学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004年4月.
[24]Moxey, L.M. A Psychological Investigation of the Use and Interpretation of English Quantifiers. Ph.D thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, U.K.1986.
[25]Moxey, L.M.& A.J.Stanford'Quantifiers and focus'[J]. Journal of Semantics. 1987.
[26]Moxey, L.M & A.J.Stanford' prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers'[J]. European Journal of Cognitive psychology 5(1),1993a.
[27]Moxey, L.M & A.J.Stanford Communicating Quantities-----A Psyological Perspective[M]. Hove(U.K.):Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd,1993b.
[28]Prince, E.F., J.Frader & C. Bosk.'On hedging in physician-physician discourse'. Paper presented at the AAAL Symposium on Applied Linguistics in Medicine. San Antonio, TX,1980.
[29]文旭.浅论英汉数词的模糊性[J].外语学刊,1994年(2).
[30]徐宜良.英汉数字模糊语义的对比研究[J].现代语文,2007(3)
[31]包惠南.汉语数字的模糊语义与翻译[J].辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版),2001(4)
[32]陈琳霞.英汉语数字修辞的对比研究[J].攀枝花学院学报(综合版),2005(2).
[33]马中夫.英汉数词虚指比较[J].湖南教育学院学报,1999(1).
[34]何杰.现代汉语量词研究[M].北京：民族出版社,2000年.
[35]杨娟.现代汉语模糊量研究[博士学位论文].南京师范大学,2007年.
[36]吕叔湘.试论表概数的“来”[J].中国语文,1957a(4).
[37]江蓝生.概数词“来”的历史考察[J].中国语文,1984(2).
[38]邢福义.“来”义级层的多个体涵量[J].中国语文,2000(1).
[39]王改改.概数词“来”语义调查和研究[J].汉语学习,2001(6).
[40]吕叔湘.再说“来”以及“多”和“半”[J].中国语文,1957b(9).
[41]李宇明.论约数词语[J].从语义信息到类型比较[A].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,2001.
[42]沈庶英.谈约量时间词[J].世界汉语教学,2000(1)
[43]殷志平.也谈约量时间词[J].世界汉语语教学,2002(4)
[44]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
[45]石安石.语义的概括性和模糊性[A].语义研究[M],北京：语文出版社,1998年.
[46]陈融.格赖斯的会话含义学说[J].外国语,1985(3)
[47]Roy A. Sorensen, A vague domenstration[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy Volume 23:507-522,2000.
[48]Ull mann. S. Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.1962.
[49]Henry Jackman. Temporal Externalism and Epistemic Theories of Vagueness[J]. Philpsophical Studies,117(1-2):79-94,2004.
[50]Williamson. T. Vagueness[M]. London:routledge,1994,.
[51]Israel Scheffler. Beyond the Letter:A Philosophical Inquiry into Amiguity[J]. Vagueness and Meaphor in Language,1979.
[52]石安石.模糊语义再议[J].中国语文,1991(5)
[53]庞建荣.模糊语言及其语境依赖性[J].外语与外语教学,2008(7)
[54]Kempson. R.M. Semantic Theory[M]. Cambrige(U.K.):Cambridge University Press,1977.
[55]Lyons, J. Language and Linguistics[M]. Cambridge (U.K.):Cambrige Universtiy Press,1981.
[56]蒋勇.虚指的通指义和极向性[J].语言教学与研究,2006第1期.
[57]Zadeh, L. A'A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets'[J]. Cogtition 12,1982.
[58]张国宪.形容词的记量[J].世界汉语教学,1996(4)
[59]李宇明.数量词语与主观量[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),1999(6).
[60]刘丽虹.张积家.时间的空间隐喻对汉语母语者时间认知的影响[J].外语教学与研究,2009(4).
[61]张谊生.试说概数助词“把”[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2001(3).
[62]石毓智.表物体形状的量词的认知基础[J].语言教学与研究,2001(1).
[63]李善熙.汉语“主观量”的表达研究[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院研究生院,2003年6月.
[64]Sadock,J.M.'Truth and approximations'[J]. Berkeley linguistic Society Papers 3, 1977.
[65]李冀宏,杨玉娟.认知域与名词的可数性[J],外语教学,2008(4)
[66]Heine, B., Claudi, U.& Hunnemeyer F. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.1991.
[67]吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[68]Trick, L.M.& Pylyshyn, Z. What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention:Evidence for preattentive Processing[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance (vol.19, pp.331-351).1993.
[69]Mandler, G. & Shebo, B.J.,Subitizing:An Analysis of its Component Process[J], Journal of Experimental Psychology:General (vol.11, pp1-22).1982
[70]何自然.语用三论：关联论·顺应论·模因论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2007.
[71]张谊生.试论主观量标记“没”、“不”、“好”[J].中国语文,2006(2)
[72]石安石.语义研究[M].北京：语文出版社,1998：167-191.
[73]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”与句子名词的“有标性”[J].当代语言学,2001(4)
[74]Robin Clark & Murray Grossman, Number sense and quantifier interpretation[J]. Springer Netherlands,Volume 26 NO.1,2007
[75]李先银.表物体量时“数+度量词+物体”与“数+容器+物体”的差异[A].似同实异：汉语近义表达方式的认知语用分析[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社2002年.
[76]郭先珍.现代汉语量词词典[M].北京：语文出版社,2002年.
[77]何英玉.语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,226页,2005年。
[78]宋教才.不定量词“点儿”和“些”比较[J].语言教学与研究,1982,(3).
[79]吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006年版。
[80]张桂宾.相对程度副词与绝对程度副词[J].华东师范大学学报(哲社版),1997(2)
[81]蔺璜,郭姝慧.程度副词的特点范围与分类[J].山西大学学报(哲社版),2003(2)
[82]韩容洙.现代汉语的程度副词[J].汉语学习,2000(2)
[83]周小兵.论现代汉语的程度副词[J].中国语文,1995(2)
[84]张谊生.现代汉语副词研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2000.
[85]黄瑞红.英语程度副词的等级数量含意[J].外语教学与研究,2008(3).
[86]Klein H.Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related languages[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
[87]易仲良.论级阶数量含义的语用功能[J].外国语,1994(3).
[88]黄南松.试论短语自成句所应具备的若干语法范畴[J].中国语文,1994(6).
[89]孔令达.影响汉语句子自足的语言形式[J].中国语文,1994(6).
[90]单韵鸣.副词“真”和“很”的用法比较[J].汉语学习,2004年(6).
[91]吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982版.
[92]储泽祥,肖扬,曾庆香.通比性的“很”字结构[J].世界汉语教学,1999(1).
[93]徐建宏.试论程度副词的对外汉语教学[J].语言文字应用,2006(2).
[94]朱德熙.现代汉语形容词研究[J].语言研究,1956(1).
[95]张国宪.现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[96]谭景春.名形词类转变的语义基础和及相关问题[J].中国语文,1998(5).
[97]石毓智.形容词的数量特征及其对句法行为的影响[J].世界汉语教学,2003年(2).
[98]李宇东.胡雪琴.英语形容词分类漫谈[J].西江大学学报,1998(3).
[99]肖凌猛.从英语形容词看英语语义结构[J].外语与外语教学,2000(3).
[100]田定远.和凤琳.英语形容词的语义功能及基本理论[J].兰州大学学报,1999(2).
[101]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学出版,1998.
[102]沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995年(5).
[103]Zadeh, L.A.'A fuzzy-set theoretic interpretation of hedges'[J], Journal of Cybernetics 2:4-34.1972
[104]Horn, L. R.1989. The Natural History of Negation [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[105]Chang In-Bong. Small Quantities and Politeness in Contemporary Korean:jokeum and jom[J]. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale,2005,(2).
[106]钱兴地.当代汉语人名称呼语社会性探微[J].太原师范学院学报,2007(2).
[107]Croft, W. "Modern Syntactic Typoloyg"[M]. in Shibatani and Bynon(eds): 85-144,1995.
[108]J. Sanford & M. Moxey. New perspectives on the expression of quantity[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 12:PP240-243,2003.
[109]程工.语言共性论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[110]李宇凤.程度副词句法语用特点的调查研究——兼论程度副词量性特征与其句法语用特征的对应[J].汉语学习,2007(2).