疑问代词语义范畴研究
|
摘要
本文运用认知语言学的原型范畴化理论、构式语法理论、主观化理论来考察疑问代词的语义范畴。原型范畴化理论有助于合理分类疑问代词语义范畴、解释疑问代词语义成员的层级关系、预测疑问代词语义范畴的扩展方向；构式语法理论可解释疑问代词语义连续扩展过程中出现的过渡语义现象；主观化理论能揭示疑问代词语义范畴的主观化过程、阐释疑问代词语义范畴扩展的认知动因。
全文共分8章,前后分别为绪论和结语,其他章节如下：
第2章讨论课题研究的理论基础及疑问代词语义范畴的构成。范畴化是人类认识世界、理解世界的基础,因此,原型范畴化理论能揭示认知领域的种种复杂现象。在疑问代词语义范畴内,“疑问”和“指代”构成了疑问代词语义范畴的基本层次,并以完全形式集聚而成该语义范畴的原型。疑问代词语义范畴的其他成员根据它们与范畴原型语义的相关性多少来构成其范畴中的等级,与原型语义有较多相关性的范畴成员位于范畴的次边缘地位,与原型语义有较少相关性或相关性逐渐趋于零的范畴成员位于范畴的边缘地位。
第3章讨论疑问代词的原型语义。“谁”、“什么”的原型语义分别为问人和问物,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+人/物]；“哪里”、“哪儿”的原型语义为询问处所,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+处所]；“怎么”的原型语义为询问方式、原因和情状,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+方式/原因/情状]；“多少”的原型语义为询问数量,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+数量]。将不同疑问和指代内容的疑问代词进行归纳,我们得出,[+疑问]和[+指代]是疑问代词原型语义的两个主要特征。
第4章讨论疑问代词的次边缘语义。疑问代词次边缘语义的主要成员包括虚指、确指和任指。这三种指代所表示的指代语义是一个连续体,彼此边界具有模糊性。根据语义特征,虚指分某指、承指性虚指。根据语义指向,确指分为指向句内主语、前指、互指。根据产生条件,任指分为全指性任指、承指性任指、条件性任指。
第5章讨论疑问代词的边缘语义。当疑问代词既没有疑问功能,也没有指代功能,完全失去疑问代词的原型语义特征、只表达说话人的一种主观态度和立场时,疑问代词的语义位于其语义范畴的边缘,即,疑问代词的边缘语义。疑问代词边缘语义包括否定、感叹和类语气词等等三个语义功能。否定是疑问代词的边缘语义之一。由于受主观化程度的影响,否定程度的分布呈现出有时强否有时弱否的不均质状态。强否和弱否除了疑问代词,还需要句子的其他成分来表现。感叹、类语气词同于否定,表达的语义在很大程度上就是疑问代词所在构式的构式语义。
第6章讨论疑问代词语义成员的关系。疑问、指代、主观态度是疑问代词语义范畴的三个主要语义内容。在疑问与指代方面,我们从类型学和历时演变的角度来探讨二者的联系。在疑问与主观态度方面,从“疑”的心理表征、“问”的交互主观性、疑问焦点所凸显的主观信息以及虚指与否定兼容的主观性基础等方面来分析疑问与主观态度的联系。
第7章讨论疑问代词语义范畴扩展的动因。疑问代词从原型语义向边缘语义的扩展是因为认知范畴的映射、主观性的参与和元语言因素的影响和推动。认知范畴的映射是主体在构建意义时的一种心理过程,主观性的参与体现在主体意识是如何进入客观场景并完成语义的主观构建的,元话语是言/写者有效表达意义而采用的主观性手段,三者共同作用、推动疑问代词语义范畴的扩展。
以上各章内容构成了本篇的主要框架,但在疑问代词语义范畴的连续扩展过程中具有“桥梁”作用的过渡语义不容忽视,过渡语义为疑问代词语义范畴的语义连续统提供了有力的证据。即：
疑问代词的语义范畴是一个语义扩展的连续体,在A与B之间、B与C之间存在过渡语义,过渡语义成为不同语义之间的衔接处,因此,过渡语义兼具前后两个不同语义阶段的语义特征,具有语义的双重性特征。
This paper uses the Prototype Theory, the Construction Grammar Theory, and the Subjectification Theory to study the semantic category of interrogative pronoun. The Prototype Theory contributes to the classfication of semantic category of interrogative pronoun, the explaination on the hierarchy of semantic members in the category, and predicting the expansion direction of the semantic category; The Construction Theory may explain the transition semantic in the process of continuous expansion; The Subjectification Theory can reveal the subjectification of the semantic category, and explain the cognitive motivation of the semantic expansion.
The paper is divided into8chapters, the first and the last respectively is the introduction and the conclusion, other chapters are as follows:
Chapter2discusses the theoretical foundation of the study and the semantic constitutor of the interrogative pronoun. The categoricalization is the foundation of human understanding the world, therefore, the prototype theory can reveal the complex phenomenon in the perceptive field. In the semantic category of interrogative pronouns,"query" and "reference" constitute the basic level of the semantic category of interrogative pronouns, and gather into the prototype of the semantic category in a complete form. At the same time, the status of the categorial other members depends on relevance of the semantic prototype, the category members which have more relevance to prototype semantic stands on the semi-edge position, and the ones which have less relevance or no relevance lies on the edge position in the category.
Chapter3discusses the prototype semantic of interrogative pronoun. The prototype semantic of "who","what" is respectively "query someone " and " query something", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "who\what" are [+querying],[+refer to],[+people] or [+things]; The prototype semantic of "where" is "query place", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "where" are [+querying],[+refer to] or [+places]; The prototype semantic of "how" is "query way\reason\state", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "how" is [+querying],[+refer to],[+way/reason/state]; The prototype semantic of "how many" is "query amount ", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "how many" are [+querying],[+refer to],[+amount]. Generalise these interrogative pronouns owning different content, we concluded,"querying" and "refer to" is the two main features of prototype semantics of interrogative pronouns.
Chapter4discusses the semi-edging semantic of interrogative pronouns. The main members of semi-edging semantic of interrogative pronoun include "uncertain reference","certain reference""any reference". The semantic expressed by the three references is a continuum, and the boundary between each other is fuzzy. According to the semantic features of uncertain reference, it includes uncertain reference, precedent reference. According the semantic direction of certain reference, it includes sentence subject reference, back reference and inter-reference. According generating condition of any reference, it includes whole reference, precedent reference and conditional reference.
Chapter5discusses the edging semantic of interrogative pronouns. When interrogative pronouns don't have querying function and also don't have reference function, completely lost the prototype semantic features of interrogative pronoun, and only express speaker's a kind of subjective attitude, its semantic stands on the edge in the semantic category, that is, become edging semantics including negative, exclamation and resemble-modal particles. Negative is one of the edging semantic of interrogative pronoun. Subjectification causes the negative degree sometimes strong and sometimes weak. Strong and weak negative need the other sentence ingredients to performance besides interrogative pronouns. Being same as negative, exclamation, resemble-modal particles in a large part is the structure semantics.
Chapter6discusses the relationship between the semantic members of interrogative pronouns. Querying, reference, subjectification is three major semantic contents of interrogative pronouns which relationship among them can be studied from different angles. On querying and reference, we can discuss the relationship in the perspective of typology and diachronic evolution. On querying and subjectification, we try to analyze the their relationship in the mental representation of querying, the intersujectivity of asking, the subjectivity of question focus, and the compatibility of uncertain reference and negative based on the subjectivity.
Chapter7discusses the expansion causes of interrogative pronoun. The semantic category of interrogative pronoun could expand from prototype semantic to the edging semantic due to the factors such as reflection of cognitive category, subjectivity participation and metadiscourse influence. the mapping of Cognitive category is a mental process as a participant construe the meaning, the participation of subjectivity demonstrates subjective participant how to get itself into the perception field and complete semantic construct, metadicourse is subjective device of which speaker/writer effectively present the meaning, the above three factors work together to promote the category expansion of interrogative pronoun.
The framework consists of the above chapters, but the transitive semantic, which plays a joint role in the semantic process of continuous expansion, cannot be ignored since it is a powerful evidence for the semantic expansion continuum of interrogative pronoun. Namely:
The semantic category of interrogative pronoun is the semantic continuum, in which a transitive semantic exists between A and B, B and C, the transitive semantics are the jionts between different semantics which has semantic features of the two adjacent semantic stages with the duplicity of semantics.
全文共分8章,前后分别为绪论和结语,其他章节如下：
第2章讨论课题研究的理论基础及疑问代词语义范畴的构成。范畴化是人类认识世界、理解世界的基础,因此,原型范畴化理论能揭示认知领域的种种复杂现象。在疑问代词语义范畴内,“疑问”和“指代”构成了疑问代词语义范畴的基本层次,并以完全形式集聚而成该语义范畴的原型。疑问代词语义范畴的其他成员根据它们与范畴原型语义的相关性多少来构成其范畴中的等级,与原型语义有较多相关性的范畴成员位于范畴的次边缘地位,与原型语义有较少相关性或相关性逐渐趋于零的范畴成员位于范畴的边缘地位。
第3章讨论疑问代词的原型语义。“谁”、“什么”的原型语义分别为问人和问物,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+人/物]；“哪里”、“哪儿”的原型语义为询问处所,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+处所]；“怎么”的原型语义为询问方式、原因和情状,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+方式/原因/情状]；“多少”的原型语义为询问数量,其原型语义特征为[+疑问]、[+指/代]、[+数量]。将不同疑问和指代内容的疑问代词进行归纳,我们得出,[+疑问]和[+指代]是疑问代词原型语义的两个主要特征。
第4章讨论疑问代词的次边缘语义。疑问代词次边缘语义的主要成员包括虚指、确指和任指。这三种指代所表示的指代语义是一个连续体,彼此边界具有模糊性。根据语义特征,虚指分某指、承指性虚指。根据语义指向,确指分为指向句内主语、前指、互指。根据产生条件,任指分为全指性任指、承指性任指、条件性任指。
第5章讨论疑问代词的边缘语义。当疑问代词既没有疑问功能,也没有指代功能,完全失去疑问代词的原型语义特征、只表达说话人的一种主观态度和立场时,疑问代词的语义位于其语义范畴的边缘,即,疑问代词的边缘语义。疑问代词边缘语义包括否定、感叹和类语气词等等三个语义功能。否定是疑问代词的边缘语义之一。由于受主观化程度的影响,否定程度的分布呈现出有时强否有时弱否的不均质状态。强否和弱否除了疑问代词,还需要句子的其他成分来表现。感叹、类语气词同于否定,表达的语义在很大程度上就是疑问代词所在构式的构式语义。
第6章讨论疑问代词语义成员的关系。疑问、指代、主观态度是疑问代词语义范畴的三个主要语义内容。在疑问与指代方面,我们从类型学和历时演变的角度来探讨二者的联系。在疑问与主观态度方面,从“疑”的心理表征、“问”的交互主观性、疑问焦点所凸显的主观信息以及虚指与否定兼容的主观性基础等方面来分析疑问与主观态度的联系。
第7章讨论疑问代词语义范畴扩展的动因。疑问代词从原型语义向边缘语义的扩展是因为认知范畴的映射、主观性的参与和元语言因素的影响和推动。认知范畴的映射是主体在构建意义时的一种心理过程,主观性的参与体现在主体意识是如何进入客观场景并完成语义的主观构建的,元话语是言/写者有效表达意义而采用的主观性手段,三者共同作用、推动疑问代词语义范畴的扩展。
以上各章内容构成了本篇的主要框架,但在疑问代词语义范畴的连续扩展过程中具有“桥梁”作用的过渡语义不容忽视,过渡语义为疑问代词语义范畴的语义连续统提供了有力的证据。即：
疑问代词的语义范畴是一个语义扩展的连续体,在A与B之间、B与C之间存在过渡语义,过渡语义成为不同语义之间的衔接处,因此,过渡语义兼具前后两个不同语义阶段的语义特征,具有语义的双重性特征。
This paper uses the Prototype Theory, the Construction Grammar Theory, and the Subjectification Theory to study the semantic category of interrogative pronoun. The Prototype Theory contributes to the classfication of semantic category of interrogative pronoun, the explaination on the hierarchy of semantic members in the category, and predicting the expansion direction of the semantic category; The Construction Theory may explain the transition semantic in the process of continuous expansion; The Subjectification Theory can reveal the subjectification of the semantic category, and explain the cognitive motivation of the semantic expansion.
The paper is divided into8chapters, the first and the last respectively is the introduction and the conclusion, other chapters are as follows:
Chapter2discusses the theoretical foundation of the study and the semantic constitutor of the interrogative pronoun. The categoricalization is the foundation of human understanding the world, therefore, the prototype theory can reveal the complex phenomenon in the perceptive field. In the semantic category of interrogative pronouns,"query" and "reference" constitute the basic level of the semantic category of interrogative pronouns, and gather into the prototype of the semantic category in a complete form. At the same time, the status of the categorial other members depends on relevance of the semantic prototype, the category members which have more relevance to prototype semantic stands on the semi-edge position, and the ones which have less relevance or no relevance lies on the edge position in the category.
Chapter3discusses the prototype semantic of interrogative pronoun. The prototype semantic of "who","what" is respectively "query someone " and " query something", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "who\what" are [+querying],[+refer to],[+people] or [+things]; The prototype semantic of "where" is "query place", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "where" are [+querying],[+refer to] or [+places]; The prototype semantic of "how" is "query way\reason\state", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "how" is [+querying],[+refer to],[+way/reason/state]; The prototype semantic of "how many" is "query amount ", therefore, the prototype semantic features of "how many" are [+querying],[+refer to],[+amount]. Generalise these interrogative pronouns owning different content, we concluded,"querying" and "refer to" is the two main features of prototype semantics of interrogative pronouns.
Chapter4discusses the semi-edging semantic of interrogative pronouns. The main members of semi-edging semantic of interrogative pronoun include "uncertain reference","certain reference""any reference". The semantic expressed by the three references is a continuum, and the boundary between each other is fuzzy. According to the semantic features of uncertain reference, it includes uncertain reference, precedent reference. According the semantic direction of certain reference, it includes sentence subject reference, back reference and inter-reference. According generating condition of any reference, it includes whole reference, precedent reference and conditional reference.
Chapter5discusses the edging semantic of interrogative pronouns. When interrogative pronouns don't have querying function and also don't have reference function, completely lost the prototype semantic features of interrogative pronoun, and only express speaker's a kind of subjective attitude, its semantic stands on the edge in the semantic category, that is, become edging semantics including negative, exclamation and resemble-modal particles. Negative is one of the edging semantic of interrogative pronoun. Subjectification causes the negative degree sometimes strong and sometimes weak. Strong and weak negative need the other sentence ingredients to performance besides interrogative pronouns. Being same as negative, exclamation, resemble-modal particles in a large part is the structure semantics.
Chapter6discusses the relationship between the semantic members of interrogative pronouns. Querying, reference, subjectification is three major semantic contents of interrogative pronouns which relationship among them can be studied from different angles. On querying and reference, we can discuss the relationship in the perspective of typology and diachronic evolution. On querying and subjectification, we try to analyze the their relationship in the mental representation of querying, the intersujectivity of asking, the subjectivity of question focus, and the compatibility of uncertain reference and negative based on the subjectivity.
Chapter7discusses the expansion causes of interrogative pronoun. The semantic category of interrogative pronoun could expand from prototype semantic to the edging semantic due to the factors such as reflection of cognitive category, subjectivity participation and metadiscourse influence. the mapping of Cognitive category is a mental process as a participant construe the meaning, the participation of subjectivity demonstrates subjective participant how to get itself into the perception field and complete semantic construct, metadicourse is subjective device of which speaker/writer effectively present the meaning, the above three factors work together to promote the category expansion of interrogative pronoun.
The framework consists of the above chapters, but the transitive semantic, which plays a joint role in the semantic process of continuous expansion, cannot be ignored since it is a powerful evidence for the semantic expansion continuum of interrogative pronoun. Namely:
The semantic category of interrogative pronoun is the semantic continuum, in which a transitive semantic exists between A and B, B and C, the transitive semantics are the jionts between different semantics which has semantic features of the two adjacent semantic stages with the duplicity of semantics.
引文
贝罗贝、吴福祥 2000《上古汉语疑问代词的发展与演变》,《中国语文》第4期
昌梅香、祝晓宏 2008《“怎么X怎么Y”的句式语义及其语法化》,《北方论丛》第4期
陈红丽 2007《疑问代词“哪里”的否定用法》,《语言应用研究》第4期
陈平 1987《释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念》,《中国语文》第2期2004《汉语双项名词句与话题一陈述结构》,《中国语文》第6期
陈天序 2007《基于集合概念的汉语疑问代词非疑问用法研究》,北京语言大学硕士研究生学位论文
陈秀清 2010《指代·疑问·反问》,《语文学刊》第3期
陈振宇 2008《现代汉语中的非典型疑问句》,《语言科学》第4期
陈振宇 2009《“知道”、“明白”类动词与疑问形式》,《汉语学习》第8期
戴庆厦 1996《景颇语的实词虚化》,《中央民族大学学报》第4期
邓晓华 2001《疑问句的功能偏离——转喻功能及其实现》,中国社会科学院研究生院硕士学位论文
段朝霞 1999《含有疑问代词的遍指句》,《新乡师范高等专科学校学报》第1期
范开泰 1985《语用分析说略》,《中国语文》第6期
方经民 1994《有关汉语句子信息结构分析的一些问题》,《语文研究》第2期
方梅 1995《汉语对比焦点的句法表现手段》,《中国语文》第4期
冯春田 2009《汉语疑问代词演变的特殊规则》,《文史哲》第5期
郭继懋 2001《“怎么”的语法意义及“方式”“原因”“情状”的关系》,《汉语学习》第6期1997《反问句的语义语用特点》,《中国语文》第2期
何洪峰 2006《汉语方式状语研究》,华中师范大学博士学位论文2010《从方式谓语到方式状语的语法化过程及认知机制》,《汉语学报》第1期 2011《动词“去”向处所介词语法化的终止与回归》,《语言研究》第2期
胡德明 2009《否定疑问句形成反问的条件》,《宁夏大学学报》第6期
胡盛伦、王健慈 1989《疑问代词的任指用法及其句式》,《汉语学习》第6期
胡松柏 1998《现代汉语疑问代词叠用式》,《厦门大学学报》第1期
胡燕慈 2004《特殊疑问句的认知研究》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
黄南松 2001《现代汉语的指称形式及其在篇章中的运用》,《世界汉语教学》第2期
黄喜宏 2008《“什么”的否定用法研究》,上海师范大学硕士学位论文
黄玉花 2004《朝鲜语动词ka ta的语法化》,《民族语文》第4期
金立鑫 1997《“把”字句的句法、语义和语境特征》,《中国语文》第6期
姜红 2007《与陈述、指称相关的现代汉语语法现象研究》,苏州大学博士学位论文
来德强 2001 《“哪儿”的非疑问用法》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
李冬香 2008《疑问代词“什么”语法化的外部动因》,东北师范大学硕士学位论文
李敏 2001 《“谁”的非疑问用法》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
李宇凤 2008《汉语偏向问研究》,中国社会科学院研究生博士学位论文
李宇明 1990《反问句的构成及其理解》,《殷都学刊》第3期1997《疑问标记的复用及标记功能的衰变》,《中国语文》第2期
廖秋忠 1986《现代汉语篇章中的连接成分》,《中国语文》第6期1991《篇章与语用和句法研究》,《语言教学与研究》第4期1986《现代汉语篇章中指同的表达》,《中国语文》第2期
刘丹青、徐烈炯 1998《焦点与背景、话题及汉语“连”字句》,《中国语文》第4期
刘丹青 2002《汉语类指成分的语义属性和句法属性》,《中国语文》第5期
刘坚 曹广顺 吴福祥 1995《论诱发汉语词汇语法化的若干因素》,《中国语文》第3期
刘顺 2003《现代汉语的否定焦点和疑问焦点》,《齐齐哈尔大学学报》第3期
陆丙甫 1998《从语义、语用看语法形式的实质》,《中国语文》第5期
陆俭明 1982《由“非疑问形式+呢”造成的疑问句》,《中国语文》第6期1986《周遍性主语句及其它》,《中国语文》第3期2009《构式与意象图式》,《北京大学学报》第3期
陆烁、潘海华 2009《汉语无定主语的语义允准分析》,《中国语文》第6期
鹿钦佞 2005《疑问代词“什么”的非疑问用法研究现状与前瞻》,《通化师范学院 学报》第5期
玛林娜·吉布拉泽2005《论现代汉语不定指性疑问代词》,《语言研究》第1期2005《现代汉语疑问代词的多视角研究》,南京师范大学博士学位论文
木仕华2003《论纳西语动词的语法化》,《民族语文》第5期
倪兰2005《现代汉语疑问代词的基本语义分析》,《北方论丛》第4期
潘建华2000《每个句子都有焦点吗?》,《山西师大学报》第3期
彭可君1992《关于陈述和指称》,《汉语学习》第2期
齐沪扬、胡建锋2010《试论“不是……吗”反问句的疑问用法》,《上海师范大学学报》第5期
邱莉芹邓根芹顾元华2000《浅谈“哪里”的否定用法》,《常熟高专学报》第5期
任鹰2007《动词词义在结构中的游移与实现》,《中国语文》第5期
杉村博文2002《论现代汉语特指疑问判断句》,《中国语文》第1期1992《现代汉语“疑问代词+也／都……”结构的语义分析》,《世界汉语教学》第3期
邵敬敏1987《疑问代词活用例解》,《思维与智慧》第4期
邵敬敏、赵秀凤1989《“什么”非疑问用法研究》,《语言教学与研究》第1期
沈家煊1994《“语法化”研究综观》,《外语教学与研究》第4期1998《语用法的语法化》,《福建外语》第2期2001《语言的“主观性”和“主观化”》,《外语教学与研究》第4期2002《如何处置“处置式”?——论把字句的主观性》,《中国语文》第5期
寿永明2002《疑问代词的否定用法》,《上海师范大学学报》第2期
谭轶操2007《现代汉语疑问句语用研究》,延边大学硕士学位论文
汤廷池1981《国语疑问句的研究》,《台湾师大学报》第26期
唐燕玲、石毓智2009《疑问和焦点之关系》,《外国语》第1期
唐燕玲2010《现代汉语小句内疑问代词同现情况考察》,湖南师范大学博士学位论文
童丽娜2008《留学生疑问代词非疑问用法习得顺序研究》,山东大学硕士学位论文
王冬梅、赵志强2008《疑问代词“多少”的“复用”》,《河北科技师范学院学报》第1期
王红旗2006《指称不确定性产生的条件》,《语文研究》第3期
王小穹 2011a《从近代汉语看主观性因素对“只”的语义影响》,《武汉科技大学学报》第2期2011b《<朱子语类>中“只是”的主观性和主观化》,《汉字文化》第3期
王玉鼎 1993《论疑问副词和疑问代词的区别》,《固原师专学报》第1期
卫斓 1998《疑问代词任指用法的使用条件》,《南京大学学报》第3期
魏丽君 1996《疑问代词的非疑问用法》,《佳木斯文师专学报》第3期
温宾利 1998《“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构》,《现代外语》第4期
温锁林 雒自清 2000《疑问焦点与否定焦点》,《雁北师范学院学报》第5期
文炼 1982《从“吗”和“呢”的用法谈到问句的疑问点》,《思维与智慧》第4期2000《指称与析句问题》,《广播电视大学学报》第4期
吴福祥 2002《汉语能性述补结构“V得/不C”的语法化》,《中国语文》第1期2003《关于语法化的单向性问题》,《当代语言学》第4期2010a《汉语方言里与趋向动词相关的几种语法化模式》,《方言》第2期2010b《东南亚语言“居住”义语素的多功能模式及语法化路径》,《民族语文》第6期
伍雅清 1999《特殊疑问句研究》,《现代外语》第1期2000《单位词是极端WU-词项的允准语》,《现代外语》第4期2002《多项WH-问句中WH-词的功能解释》,《现代外语》第1期
肖任飞 2006《非疑问用法的“什么”及其相关格式》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文
肖治野 2003《“怎么”反问句的研究及其教学思考》,暨南大学硕士学位论文
靳焱 倪兰 2003《疑问代词研究综述》,《中南民族大学学报》第8期
邢福义 1987《现代汉语的特指性是非问》,《语言教学与研究》第4期
徐继明 1996《否定疑问句与反问句不可混淆》,《成都大学学报》第3期
徐杰、张林林 1985《疑问程度和疑问句式》,《江西师范大学学报》第2期
徐杰、李英哲 1993《焦点和两个非线性语法范畴：“否定”“疑问”》,《中国语文》第2期
徐杰 1999《疑问范畴与疑问句式》,《语言研究》第2期
许敏 2003《疑问词移位和疑问词原位》,南京师范大学硕士学位论文
徐盛桓 1999《疑问句探询功能的迁移》,《中国语文》第1期
许力生 2006《语言学研究的语境理论构建》《浙江大学学报》第4期
玄玥 2002《焦点问题研究综述》,《汉语学习》第4期
杨非 1996《关于“疑问代词”的疑问》,《新疆中医药》第1期
殷树林2006《现代汉语反问句研究》福建师范大学博士学位论文2008《现代汉语反问句应答系统考察》,《语言教学与研究》第3期
于细良1965《疑问代词的任指用法》,《中国语文》第1期
袁毓林1992《现代汉语名词的配价研究》,《中国社会科学》第3期2004《论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响》,《语言研究》第4期
袁策通1980《疑问代词的指称》,《西藏民族学院学报》第1期
张伯江1997《疑问句功能琐议》,《中国语文》第2期
张黎1987《句子语义重心分析法刍议》,《齐齐哈尔师范学院学报》第1期
张文颖2007《句法结构的语义层级性》,华中科技大学硕士学位论文
张晓涛2009《现代汉语疑问范畴和否定范畴的相通性及构式整合》,吉林大学博士学位论文
张秀清2010《指示.疑问.反问》,《语文学刊》第5期
张雨江2007《拉枯语语法化研究》,《民族语文》第2期
张尹琼2005《疑问代词的非疑问用法——以“谁”和“什么”为主要样本的探索》,复旦大学博士学位论文
郑雷2005《疑问代词的否定用法考察》,浙江师范大学硕士学位论文
祝东平2006《疑问代词用法新论》,《社会科学战线.学术短文》第6期
Altmann G. and Yuki Kamide 2008 Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world:Eye movements and mentalrepresentation. Accepted 18 December 2008. Available online 3 February 2009. Cognition.Volume 111, Issue 1, April 2009, Pages 55-71.
Aoun. Joseph & Yen-Hui Audrey Li 1993 Wh-elements in situ:Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24:199-238.
Benveniste, Emile 1971 [1958] Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics 223-230.
Brown, R.1958 How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review 65:14-21.
Brown, Roger W. and Eric H. Lenneberg 1954 'A study in language and cognition', Journal of abnormal and social psychology 49,454-62 Bunton, D.1999'The use of higher level metatext in PhD these'. English for Specific Purposes,18, S41-S56 Bybee, Joan L.1988 Semantic Substance vs. Contrast in the Development of Grammatical Meaning. Proceedings of tke Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14:247-264. Camiciottoli, B. C.2003'Metadiscourse and ESP comprehension:an exploratory study'. Reading in a Foreign Language,15(1),15-33. Cheng, Lisa(郑立珊) 1991 On theTypology of WH-questions, MIT. Cheng, RobertL(郑良伟) 1982 Chinese question forms and their meanings, ms. Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M.1996 'Metadiscourse:a technique for improving student writing'. Research in the Teaching of English,30(2),149-81. Coleman, L.&P. Kay 1981 Prototypes semantics:The English word Lie. Language 57-1:26-44. Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R.1989 'Mr. Darwin and his readers:exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos''. Rhetoric Review,8(1), 91-112. Croft. William 1993 'The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies'. Cognitive linguistics 4,335-70. Curnow, Timothy Jowan 1997 A grammar of Aw a Pit (Cuaipuer):An indigenous language of south western Columbia. Canberra:Australian Nation University dissertation. Ericsson, A. and W. Kintsch 1995 Long term working memory, Psychological Review,102.2. Fillmore, C. J.1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting, Berkeley Lingguistic Society:123-131. Fleischman, S.1989 Temporal distance:A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in language 13-1:1-50. Fitzmaurice, Susan 2004 Subjectivity, inter subjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance:From stance markers to discourse markers.Discourse Studies 6:427-448.
Fuertes-Olivera, p. Velasco-Sacristan, M. Arribas-bano, A. and Samaniego Fernandez, E. 2001 'Persuasion and advertising English:metadiscourse in slogans and headlines'. Journal of Pragmatics,33,1291-1307.
Givon, T.1973 The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49:890-925.
Givon, T.1980 Interrogativity:A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages "Ute". Milic, Louis T. and Greppin, John A.C.(eds.), In:Chisholm, Willian S.,215-243. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.2007 Grammar as an Adaptive Evolutionary Product:on Representing other minds.
Holger Diessel 2003 The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27:3,635-65.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra. Thompson 1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60:703-83,752.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra. Thompson 1985 The iconicity of the universal categories "noun"and"verb. "In Haiman, ed.,1985b,151-83.
Huang, James C-T.1982 Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369-416.
Humphreys, G.W. and J.M. Riddoch 1987 Visual Object Processing:A Cognitive Neuropsychological Approach, London:Erlbaum.
Humphreys, G.W. and J.M. Riddoch 1988 On the case of multiple semantic systems:A reply to Shallice, Cognitive Neuropsychology,5.1.
Hyland, K.1998a Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam:John Benjamns.
Hyland, K.1998b'Persuasion and context:the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse' Journal of Pragmatics,30,437-55.
Hyland, K.2004 'Disciplinary interactions:metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing'. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol.13:133-51.
Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M.1995 'The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays'. Journal of Second Language Writing,4(3),253-72.
Jackendoff, R.1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambidge, Massachusett:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
John R. Taylor.2001 Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (Second edition). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Oxford University Press.
Kay, Paul and Chad K. McDaniel 1978 'The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms', Language 54,610-46.
Lakoff, G.1972 A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In CLS(8), Papers from the 13th Regional meetings [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, G.1977 Linguistic gestalts. In CLS (13), Papers from the 13th Regional meetings [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, R. W.1987 Nouns and Verbs. Language 63:53-95.
Langacker, R. W.1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1:5-38.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey(李艳惠)1992 Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1:125-156.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1992 The syntax of Zenmeyang 'How'and Weishenme'Why' in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,293-331.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1996 Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachuesetts, Amherst.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1998 On existential polarity Wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics.7,219-255.
Lyons, John 1994 Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity:The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory,9-17. Paris:Ophrys/London:Institut Francais du Royaume-Uni.
Matisoff, J. A.1991 · Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization inLahu.. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine(eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam:Benjamins,383-453.
Norrick, N. R.2001 'Discourse markers in oral narratives'. Journal of Pragmatics, 33,849-78.
Nuyts, Jan.2001 Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. (Human Cognitive Processing 5.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Posner, M.I. and A. Pavese 1997 Anatomy of word and sentence meanings, paper presented at the Colloquium on Neuroimaging of Human Brain Functions, M. Posner and M. Raichle, orgs, Nat. Acad. of Scie. USA, Irvine, CA, May 1997 (ms).
Ramat, P.1999 Linguistic categories and linguists'categorization. Linguistics 37: 157-180.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J. and Smith, E. E.1973 Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 12:1-20.
Rosch, E. H. & Mervis, C. B.1975 Family resemblances:studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology,7:537-605.
Rosch, E. H.1976 Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance 2:491-502.
Rosch. Eleanor 1978 'Principles of categorization'. In:Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, eds, Cognition and categorization, Hillsdale/N. J., N. Y. Lawrence Erlbaum,27-48.
Schiffrin, D.1980 'Metatalk:organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse'. Sociological Inquiry:Language and Social Interaction,50,199-236.
Squire, L.R. and S. ZolaMorgan 1991 The medial temporal lobe memory system, Science,253.
Sweetser, Eve E.1984 Semantic Structure and Semantic Change:A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Modality. Perception, Speech Acts, and Logical Relations. Berkeley:University of California doctoral dissertation.
Sweetser, Eve E.1987 Metaphorical Models of Thought and Speech:A Comparison of Historical Directions and Metaphorical Mappings in Two Domains. BLS 13:446-459.
Timberlake, Alan 1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, ed. 141-80.
Traugott, E. C.1986 From Polysemy to Internal Semantic Reconstruction. BLS 12: 539-550.
Traugott, E. C.2010 Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification. in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization,29-70. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, E. C.1988 Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. BLS 14: 406-416.
Wierzbicka, Anna 1990 The meaning of color terms:semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive linguistics 1:99-150.
C.J.菲尔墨著胡明扬译2002《“格”辨》,商务印书馆
陈保亚1999《20世纪中国语言学方法论》,山东教育出版社
陈昌来2000《现代汉语句子》,华东师范大学出版社
陈振宇2009《疑问范畴中形式与标记的组合计算记[A].汉语语法研究的新拓展》(第四辑)[C],北京大学出版社
丁声树1980[1961]《现代汉语语法讲话》,商务印书馆
范开泰,张亚军2000《现代汉语语法分析》,华东师范大学出版社
冯春田2000《近代汉语语法研究》山东教育出版社
高名凯1986《汉语语法论》商务印书馆
洪波1998《论汉语实词虚化的机制[C].古汉语语法论集》,语文出版社
胡建华、潘海华2003《指称性、离散性与集合：孤岛中的疑问句研究[C].语法研究和探索》(十二),中国语文杂志社编商务印书馆
黄伯荣1984《汉语知识讲话.陈述句、疑问句、祈使句、感叹句》,上海教育出版社
黄居仁,张莉萍,安可思,陈超然1999《词汇语意和句式语意的互动关系[A].中国境内语言暨语言学第五辑：语言中的互动[C]》,中央研究院语言学研究所筹备处
蒋绍愚2005《近代汉语语法史研究综述》,商务印书馆
金锡谟1983《汉语代词例解》,书目文献出版社
静筠二禅师(南唐)1994《祖堂集》,上海古籍出版社影印
黎锦熙1953《新著国语文法》,商务印书馆
林祥楣1984《汉语知识讲话.代词》,上海教育出版社
刘丹青2008《语法调查研究手册》,上海世纪出版股份有限公司/上海教育出版社
刘月华、潘文娱 1983《实用现代汉语语法》,外语教学与研究出版社
刘正光 2006《语言非范畴化》,上海外语教育出版社
罗纳德著 高远 李福印主编 2007《兰艾克认知语法十讲Ten Lectures On Cognitive Grammar by Ronald Langacken》,外语教学与研究出版社
吕叔湘 1980《现代汉语八百词》,商务印书馆1979《汉语语法分析问题》,商务印书馆1982[1943,1944]《中国文法要略》,商务印书馆
吕叔湘著、江蓝生补 1985《近代汉语指代词》学林出版社
廖秋忠 1992《廖秋忠文集》,北京语言学院出版社
陆丙甫 2010《汉语的认知心理研究——结构范畴方法》,商务印书馆
马建忠 《马氏文通》(一),商务印书馆万有文库本
马真 1988《简明实用汉语语法》,北京大学出版社
沈开木 1996《现代汉语话语语言学》,商务印书馆
沈家煊 1999《语法化和形义间的扭曲关系[C].中国语言学的新拓展》,香港城市大学出版社1999《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社
石毓智 2000《语法的认知语义基础》,江西教育出版社2001《语法的形式和理据》,江西教育出版社
束定芳 2008《认知语义学》,上海外语教育出版社
苏渊雷点校 1997《五灯会元》,中华书局
太田辰夫 2003[1958]《中国语历史文法》(修订译本)蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京大学出版社1991 《汉语史通考》,重庆出版社
外国留学生教学小组1975《现代汉语语法分析(试用教材)》,南开大学中文系
王海棻 1985《古汉语疑问词语》,浙江教育出版社
王力 1954《中国语法理论》(下册),中华书局出版1980《汉语史稿》,中华书局1985《中国现代语法》,商务印书馆
王新文、熊文编 2000《汉语听力中级教程A种本》(上),北京语言大学出版社
温锁林 1998《汉语句子的信息安排及其句法后果——以“周遍句”为例[A].三 个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野》,语文出版社
吴福祥、洪波 2003《语法化与语法研究》(一),商务印书馆
邢福义 2002《汉语语法三百问》,商务印书馆1980《现代汉语语法知识》,湖北人民出版社1986《语法问题探讨集》,湖北教育出版社
徐烈炯、刘丹青 1998《话题的结构与功能》,上海教育出版社
徐杰 2001《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京大学出版社
杨树达 1955[1920]《高等国文法》,商务印书馆
张斌 1998《汉语语法学》上海教育出版社
张伯江、方梅 1996《汉语功能语法研究》,江西教育出版社
张静 1987《汉语语法问题》,中国社会科学出版社
张志公 1953《汉语语法常识》,中国青年出版社1991《汉语语法.张志公文集》,广东教育出版社
中国社会科学研究所2000《现代汉语词典》(修订版),商务印书馆
志村良治 1995《中国中世语法史研究》,中华书局
朱德熙 1980《现代汉语语法研究》,商务印书馆1985《语法答问》,商务印书馆1989《语法丛稿》,上海教育出版社
Adele E. Goldberg著 吴海波译 2007[1995]《构式：论元结构的构式语法研究》,北京大学出版社
Allerton, D. J.1979 Essentials of Grammatical Theory:A Consensus View of Syntax and Morphology, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bowerman, M.1978 The acquisition of word meaning:An investigation into some current concepts, In N. Waterson and C. Snow(eds.), The Development of C ommunication, New York:Wiley.
Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca 1985 Cross-Linguistic Comparison and the Development of Grammatical Meaning, In Fisiak, Jacek (ed), Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation.Berlin:Mouton.59-83.
Company, C. C.2002 Grammaticalization and category weakness, In Wischer & Diewald(eds.):201-216.
Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R.1990 'Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse', In W. Nash(ed.), The Writing Scholar:Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,118-36.
Croft. W.1993 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations, Chicago: University Press.
Croft. W.2000 Typology and Universals, Foreigh Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambrideg University Press.
Croft. W.2001 Radical Construction Grammar, Oxford:OUP. Cruse, D. A.
Croft. W.1986 Lexical Semntics. Cambridge, Cambrideg University Press.
Fillmore.C.J 1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul:Hanshin.
Finegan, E.1995 Subjectivity and subjectivisation:an introduction, In Stein & Wright 1995.1-15.
Firth J R.1951/1957 [1934] Papers in Linguistics, London:Oxford University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne.
Firth J R.1982 The Future in Thought and Language:Diachronic Evidence from Romance, Cambrideg:Cambrideg University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1988 Where does prototypicality come from? In Rudzka-Ostyn:207-29.
Gillian, Brown & George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge:NewYorkNew Rochelle Melbourne Sydney:190-223.
Givon, T.1986 Prototypes:Between Plato and Wittgenstein, In Craig(ed.):77-102.
Grice. P.1975 Logic and Conversation, P. Cole and Morgan, Syntax and Semantic: SpeechActs, New York:Academic Press.
Halliday M. A. K.1978 Language as Social Semiotic:The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday M. A. K.1985 Language, Context, and Text, Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday M. A. K.1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2d ed. London: Arnold.
Hampton, J. A.1997 Emergent attributes in combined concepts, In T. B. Ward etc. (eds.):83-110.
Hayden, D. E. and Alworth, E. P. (eds.).1965 Classics in Semantics, London: Vision.
Heider, Keith G. 1970 The Dugum Dani:A Papuan culture in the highlands of West New Guinea, Chicago:Aldine.
Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh.1984 Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African languages, Hamburg:Buske.
Heine, B, Claudi, U. & F. Hunnemeyer.1991 Grammaticalization:A conceptual Framework, Chicago:University of Chicao Press.
Hinds, John 1986 Japanese, London:Croom Helm.
Hyland, K.2000 Disciplinary Discourses:Social Interactions in Academic Writing, London:Longman.
Hyland, K.2008 Metadiscourse, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Continum:BeiJing.
John Lyons 2000 Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press.
Kay, P.1997 Words and the Grammar of Context, Leland Stanford Junior University:CSLI Publications.
Kemmer, S.1992 Grammatical Prototypes and Competing Motivations in a Theory of Linguistic Change, In Davis & Iverson (eds.):145-166.
Kempton, W.1981 The Folk Classification of Ceramics:A Study of Cognitive Prototypes, New York:Academic Press.
Ken Hyland 2008 Metadiscourse. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lakoff, G.1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff George and Mark Turner 1989 More than cool reason:Afield guide to poetic metaphor, Chicago University Press.
Lakoff George 2007 Ten Lectures on Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W.1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. Ⅱ. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1999b Losing control:grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank & Koch (eds.):147-175.
Leech, Geoffrey 1983 Semantics. Penguin Books. London,.
Lyons, J.1977 Semantics.2 vols. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.2000 Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press/Cambridge University Press.
N. Chomsky.1970深层结构、表层结构和语义解释.赵世开译.语言学译丛(第二辑).北京：中国社会科学出版社.
Newmeyer, Fredrick J.1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press.
Ogden C K, Richard I A.1923 The Meaning of Meaning. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Palmer, F. R.2007 Mood and Modality北京：世界图书出版公司剑桥大学出版社：52-58.
Paul J. Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2001 Grammaticalization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press,.
Robert A. Dooley Stephen H. Levinsohn 2008 Analyzing Discourse:A Mannual of Basic Concepts. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Sil International.
Roberts, John R.1987 Amele. London:Routledge.
Rosch. Eleanor 1977 'Human categorization'. In:Neil Warren, ed., Studies in cross-cultural psychology, Vol. I, London, etc:Academic Press,1-49.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1990 The management of a co-operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, 241-259.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Squire, L.R.1987 Memory and Brain, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stephen C. Levinson 2008 Space in Language and Cognition:Exploration in Cognitive Diversity.世界图书出版公司剑桥大学出版社.
Swales, J.1990 Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:CUP.
Talmy, L.1988 The Relation of Grammar to Cognition B. Rudzka-Ostyn. Topics in Cognitive L inguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company:165-205.
Taylor, J. R.2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thomas Fuchs & Hanne De Jaegher 2009 Enactive inter subjectivity:Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Springer Science Business Media B.V.
Traugott, E. C.1982 From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.245-271.
Traugott, E. C.1987 On the Historical Relation between Mental and Speech Act Verbs in English and Japanese. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone et al. (eds.), Papers front the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.561-573.
Traugott, E. C.1995 Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein & Wright 1995:31-54.
F. Ungerer & H. J. Schmid 2001 An Intronduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 10.
Wittgenstein, L. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M 1953 Philosophical Investigations, New York:MacMillan.
昌梅香、祝晓宏 2008《“怎么X怎么Y”的句式语义及其语法化》,《北方论丛》第4期
陈红丽 2007《疑问代词“哪里”的否定用法》,《语言应用研究》第4期
陈平 1987《释汉语中与名词性成分相关的四组概念》,《中国语文》第2期2004《汉语双项名词句与话题一陈述结构》,《中国语文》第6期
陈天序 2007《基于集合概念的汉语疑问代词非疑问用法研究》,北京语言大学硕士研究生学位论文
陈秀清 2010《指代·疑问·反问》,《语文学刊》第3期
陈振宇 2008《现代汉语中的非典型疑问句》,《语言科学》第4期
陈振宇 2009《“知道”、“明白”类动词与疑问形式》,《汉语学习》第8期
戴庆厦 1996《景颇语的实词虚化》,《中央民族大学学报》第4期
邓晓华 2001《疑问句的功能偏离——转喻功能及其实现》,中国社会科学院研究生院硕士学位论文
段朝霞 1999《含有疑问代词的遍指句》,《新乡师范高等专科学校学报》第1期
范开泰 1985《语用分析说略》,《中国语文》第6期
方经民 1994《有关汉语句子信息结构分析的一些问题》,《语文研究》第2期
方梅 1995《汉语对比焦点的句法表现手段》,《中国语文》第4期
冯春田 2009《汉语疑问代词演变的特殊规则》,《文史哲》第5期
郭继懋 2001《“怎么”的语法意义及“方式”“原因”“情状”的关系》,《汉语学习》第6期1997《反问句的语义语用特点》,《中国语文》第2期
何洪峰 2006《汉语方式状语研究》,华中师范大学博士学位论文2010《从方式谓语到方式状语的语法化过程及认知机制》,《汉语学报》第1期 2011《动词“去”向处所介词语法化的终止与回归》,《语言研究》第2期
胡德明 2009《否定疑问句形成反问的条件》,《宁夏大学学报》第6期
胡盛伦、王健慈 1989《疑问代词的任指用法及其句式》,《汉语学习》第6期
胡松柏 1998《现代汉语疑问代词叠用式》,《厦门大学学报》第1期
胡燕慈 2004《特殊疑问句的认知研究》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
黄南松 2001《现代汉语的指称形式及其在篇章中的运用》,《世界汉语教学》第2期
黄喜宏 2008《“什么”的否定用法研究》,上海师范大学硕士学位论文
黄玉花 2004《朝鲜语动词ka ta的语法化》,《民族语文》第4期
金立鑫 1997《“把”字句的句法、语义和语境特征》,《中国语文》第6期
姜红 2007《与陈述、指称相关的现代汉语语法现象研究》,苏州大学博士学位论文
来德强 2001 《“哪儿”的非疑问用法》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
李冬香 2008《疑问代词“什么”语法化的外部动因》,东北师范大学硕士学位论文
李敏 2001 《“谁”的非疑问用法》,河南大学研究生硕士学位论文
李宇凤 2008《汉语偏向问研究》,中国社会科学院研究生博士学位论文
李宇明 1990《反问句的构成及其理解》,《殷都学刊》第3期1997《疑问标记的复用及标记功能的衰变》,《中国语文》第2期
廖秋忠 1986《现代汉语篇章中的连接成分》,《中国语文》第6期1991《篇章与语用和句法研究》,《语言教学与研究》第4期1986《现代汉语篇章中指同的表达》,《中国语文》第2期
刘丹青、徐烈炯 1998《焦点与背景、话题及汉语“连”字句》,《中国语文》第4期
刘丹青 2002《汉语类指成分的语义属性和句法属性》,《中国语文》第5期
刘坚 曹广顺 吴福祥 1995《论诱发汉语词汇语法化的若干因素》,《中国语文》第3期
刘顺 2003《现代汉语的否定焦点和疑问焦点》,《齐齐哈尔大学学报》第3期
陆丙甫 1998《从语义、语用看语法形式的实质》,《中国语文》第5期
陆俭明 1982《由“非疑问形式+呢”造成的疑问句》,《中国语文》第6期1986《周遍性主语句及其它》,《中国语文》第3期2009《构式与意象图式》,《北京大学学报》第3期
陆烁、潘海华 2009《汉语无定主语的语义允准分析》,《中国语文》第6期
鹿钦佞 2005《疑问代词“什么”的非疑问用法研究现状与前瞻》,《通化师范学院 学报》第5期
玛林娜·吉布拉泽2005《论现代汉语不定指性疑问代词》,《语言研究》第1期2005《现代汉语疑问代词的多视角研究》,南京师范大学博士学位论文
木仕华2003《论纳西语动词的语法化》,《民族语文》第5期
倪兰2005《现代汉语疑问代词的基本语义分析》,《北方论丛》第4期
潘建华2000《每个句子都有焦点吗?》,《山西师大学报》第3期
彭可君1992《关于陈述和指称》,《汉语学习》第2期
齐沪扬、胡建锋2010《试论“不是……吗”反问句的疑问用法》,《上海师范大学学报》第5期
邱莉芹邓根芹顾元华2000《浅谈“哪里”的否定用法》,《常熟高专学报》第5期
任鹰2007《动词词义在结构中的游移与实现》,《中国语文》第5期
杉村博文2002《论现代汉语特指疑问判断句》,《中国语文》第1期1992《现代汉语“疑问代词+也／都……”结构的语义分析》,《世界汉语教学》第3期
邵敬敏1987《疑问代词活用例解》,《思维与智慧》第4期
邵敬敏、赵秀凤1989《“什么”非疑问用法研究》,《语言教学与研究》第1期
沈家煊1994《“语法化”研究综观》,《外语教学与研究》第4期1998《语用法的语法化》,《福建外语》第2期2001《语言的“主观性”和“主观化”》,《外语教学与研究》第4期2002《如何处置“处置式”?——论把字句的主观性》,《中国语文》第5期
寿永明2002《疑问代词的否定用法》,《上海师范大学学报》第2期
谭轶操2007《现代汉语疑问句语用研究》,延边大学硕士学位论文
汤廷池1981《国语疑问句的研究》,《台湾师大学报》第26期
唐燕玲、石毓智2009《疑问和焦点之关系》,《外国语》第1期
唐燕玲2010《现代汉语小句内疑问代词同现情况考察》,湖南师范大学博士学位论文
童丽娜2008《留学生疑问代词非疑问用法习得顺序研究》,山东大学硕士学位论文
王冬梅、赵志强2008《疑问代词“多少”的“复用”》,《河北科技师范学院学报》第1期
王红旗2006《指称不确定性产生的条件》,《语文研究》第3期
王小穹 2011a《从近代汉语看主观性因素对“只”的语义影响》,《武汉科技大学学报》第2期2011b《<朱子语类>中“只是”的主观性和主观化》,《汉字文化》第3期
王玉鼎 1993《论疑问副词和疑问代词的区别》,《固原师专学报》第1期
卫斓 1998《疑问代词任指用法的使用条件》,《南京大学学报》第3期
魏丽君 1996《疑问代词的非疑问用法》,《佳木斯文师专学报》第3期
温宾利 1998《“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构》,《现代外语》第4期
温锁林 雒自清 2000《疑问焦点与否定焦点》,《雁北师范学院学报》第5期
文炼 1982《从“吗”和“呢”的用法谈到问句的疑问点》,《思维与智慧》第4期2000《指称与析句问题》,《广播电视大学学报》第4期
吴福祥 2002《汉语能性述补结构“V得/不C”的语法化》,《中国语文》第1期2003《关于语法化的单向性问题》,《当代语言学》第4期2010a《汉语方言里与趋向动词相关的几种语法化模式》,《方言》第2期2010b《东南亚语言“居住”义语素的多功能模式及语法化路径》,《民族语文》第6期
伍雅清 1999《特殊疑问句研究》,《现代外语》第1期2000《单位词是极端WU-词项的允准语》,《现代外语》第4期2002《多项WH-问句中WH-词的功能解释》,《现代外语》第1期
肖任飞 2006《非疑问用法的“什么”及其相关格式》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文
肖治野 2003《“怎么”反问句的研究及其教学思考》,暨南大学硕士学位论文
靳焱 倪兰 2003《疑问代词研究综述》,《中南民族大学学报》第8期
邢福义 1987《现代汉语的特指性是非问》,《语言教学与研究》第4期
徐继明 1996《否定疑问句与反问句不可混淆》,《成都大学学报》第3期
徐杰、张林林 1985《疑问程度和疑问句式》,《江西师范大学学报》第2期
徐杰、李英哲 1993《焦点和两个非线性语法范畴：“否定”“疑问”》,《中国语文》第2期
徐杰 1999《疑问范畴与疑问句式》,《语言研究》第2期
许敏 2003《疑问词移位和疑问词原位》,南京师范大学硕士学位论文
徐盛桓 1999《疑问句探询功能的迁移》,《中国语文》第1期
许力生 2006《语言学研究的语境理论构建》《浙江大学学报》第4期
玄玥 2002《焦点问题研究综述》,《汉语学习》第4期
杨非 1996《关于“疑问代词”的疑问》,《新疆中医药》第1期
殷树林2006《现代汉语反问句研究》福建师范大学博士学位论文2008《现代汉语反问句应答系统考察》,《语言教学与研究》第3期
于细良1965《疑问代词的任指用法》,《中国语文》第1期
袁毓林1992《现代汉语名词的配价研究》,《中国社会科学》第3期2004《论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响》,《语言研究》第4期
袁策通1980《疑问代词的指称》,《西藏民族学院学报》第1期
张伯江1997《疑问句功能琐议》,《中国语文》第2期
张黎1987《句子语义重心分析法刍议》,《齐齐哈尔师范学院学报》第1期
张文颖2007《句法结构的语义层级性》,华中科技大学硕士学位论文
张晓涛2009《现代汉语疑问范畴和否定范畴的相通性及构式整合》,吉林大学博士学位论文
张秀清2010《指示.疑问.反问》,《语文学刊》第5期
张雨江2007《拉枯语语法化研究》,《民族语文》第2期
张尹琼2005《疑问代词的非疑问用法——以“谁”和“什么”为主要样本的探索》,复旦大学博士学位论文
郑雷2005《疑问代词的否定用法考察》,浙江师范大学硕士学位论文
祝东平2006《疑问代词用法新论》,《社会科学战线.学术短文》第6期
Altmann G. and Yuki Kamide 2008 Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world:Eye movements and mentalrepresentation. Accepted 18 December 2008. Available online 3 February 2009. Cognition.Volume 111, Issue 1, April 2009, Pages 55-71.
Aoun. Joseph & Yen-Hui Audrey Li 1993 Wh-elements in situ:Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24:199-238.
Benveniste, Emile 1971 [1958] Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics 223-230.
Brown, R.1958 How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review 65:14-21.
Brown, Roger W. and Eric H. Lenneberg 1954 'A study in language and cognition', Journal of abnormal and social psychology 49,454-62 Bunton, D.1999'The use of higher level metatext in PhD these'. English for Specific Purposes,18, S41-S56 Bybee, Joan L.1988 Semantic Substance vs. Contrast in the Development of Grammatical Meaning. Proceedings of tke Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14:247-264. Camiciottoli, B. C.2003'Metadiscourse and ESP comprehension:an exploratory study'. Reading in a Foreign Language,15(1),15-33. Cheng, Lisa(郑立珊) 1991 On theTypology of WH-questions, MIT. Cheng, RobertL(郑良伟) 1982 Chinese question forms and their meanings, ms. Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M.1996 'Metadiscourse:a technique for improving student writing'. Research in the Teaching of English,30(2),149-81. Coleman, L.&P. Kay 1981 Prototypes semantics:The English word Lie. Language 57-1:26-44. Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R.1989 'Mr. Darwin and his readers:exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos''. Rhetoric Review,8(1), 91-112. Croft. William 1993 'The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies'. Cognitive linguistics 4,335-70. Curnow, Timothy Jowan 1997 A grammar of Aw a Pit (Cuaipuer):An indigenous language of south western Columbia. Canberra:Australian Nation University dissertation. Ericsson, A. and W. Kintsch 1995 Long term working memory, Psychological Review,102.2. Fillmore, C. J.1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting, Berkeley Lingguistic Society:123-131. Fleischman, S.1989 Temporal distance:A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in language 13-1:1-50. Fitzmaurice, Susan 2004 Subjectivity, inter subjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance:From stance markers to discourse markers.Discourse Studies 6:427-448.
Fuertes-Olivera, p. Velasco-Sacristan, M. Arribas-bano, A. and Samaniego Fernandez, E. 2001 'Persuasion and advertising English:metadiscourse in slogans and headlines'. Journal of Pragmatics,33,1291-1307.
Givon, T.1973 The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49:890-925.
Givon, T.1980 Interrogativity:A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages "Ute". Milic, Louis T. and Greppin, John A.C.(eds.), In:Chisholm, Willian S.,215-243. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.2007 Grammar as an Adaptive Evolutionary Product:on Representing other minds.
Holger Diessel 2003 The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27:3,635-65.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra. Thompson 1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60:703-83,752.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra. Thompson 1985 The iconicity of the universal categories "noun"and"verb. "In Haiman, ed.,1985b,151-83.
Huang, James C-T.1982 Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369-416.
Humphreys, G.W. and J.M. Riddoch 1987 Visual Object Processing:A Cognitive Neuropsychological Approach, London:Erlbaum.
Humphreys, G.W. and J.M. Riddoch 1988 On the case of multiple semantic systems:A reply to Shallice, Cognitive Neuropsychology,5.1.
Hyland, K.1998a Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam:John Benjamns.
Hyland, K.1998b'Persuasion and context:the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse' Journal of Pragmatics,30,437-55.
Hyland, K.2004 'Disciplinary interactions:metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing'. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol.13:133-51.
Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M.1995 'The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays'. Journal of Second Language Writing,4(3),253-72.
Jackendoff, R.1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambidge, Massachusett:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
John R. Taylor.2001 Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (Second edition). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Oxford University Press.
Kay, Paul and Chad K. McDaniel 1978 'The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms', Language 54,610-46.
Lakoff, G.1972 A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In CLS(8), Papers from the 13th Regional meetings [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, G.1977 Linguistic gestalts. In CLS (13), Papers from the 13th Regional meetings [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, R. W.1987 Nouns and Verbs. Language 63:53-95.
Langacker, R. W.1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1:5-38.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey(李艳惠)1992 Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1:125-156.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1992 The syntax of Zenmeyang 'How'and Weishenme'Why' in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,293-331.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1996 Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachuesetts, Amherst.
Lin, Jo-wang(林若望)1998 On existential polarity Wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics.7,219-255.
Lyons, John 1994 Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity:The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory,9-17. Paris:Ophrys/London:Institut Francais du Royaume-Uni.
Matisoff, J. A.1991 · Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization inLahu.. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine(eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam:Benjamins,383-453.
Norrick, N. R.2001 'Discourse markers in oral narratives'. Journal of Pragmatics, 33,849-78.
Nuyts, Jan.2001 Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. (Human Cognitive Processing 5.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Posner, M.I. and A. Pavese 1997 Anatomy of word and sentence meanings, paper presented at the Colloquium on Neuroimaging of Human Brain Functions, M. Posner and M. Raichle, orgs, Nat. Acad. of Scie. USA, Irvine, CA, May 1997 (ms).
Ramat, P.1999 Linguistic categories and linguists'categorization. Linguistics 37: 157-180.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J. and Smith, E. E.1973 Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 12:1-20.
Rosch, E. H. & Mervis, C. B.1975 Family resemblances:studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology,7:537-605.
Rosch, E. H.1976 Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance 2:491-502.
Rosch. Eleanor 1978 'Principles of categorization'. In:Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, eds, Cognition and categorization, Hillsdale/N. J., N. Y. Lawrence Erlbaum,27-48.
Schiffrin, D.1980 'Metatalk:organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse'. Sociological Inquiry:Language and Social Interaction,50,199-236.
Squire, L.R. and S. ZolaMorgan 1991 The medial temporal lobe memory system, Science,253.
Sweetser, Eve E.1984 Semantic Structure and Semantic Change:A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Modality. Perception, Speech Acts, and Logical Relations. Berkeley:University of California doctoral dissertation.
Sweetser, Eve E.1987 Metaphorical Models of Thought and Speech:A Comparison of Historical Directions and Metaphorical Mappings in Two Domains. BLS 13:446-459.
Timberlake, Alan 1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, ed. 141-80.
Traugott, E. C.1986 From Polysemy to Internal Semantic Reconstruction. BLS 12: 539-550.
Traugott, E. C.2010 Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification. in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization,29-70. Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, E. C.1988 Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. BLS 14: 406-416.
Wierzbicka, Anna 1990 The meaning of color terms:semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive linguistics 1:99-150.
C.J.菲尔墨著胡明扬译2002《“格”辨》,商务印书馆
陈保亚1999《20世纪中国语言学方法论》,山东教育出版社
陈昌来2000《现代汉语句子》,华东师范大学出版社
陈振宇2009《疑问范畴中形式与标记的组合计算记[A].汉语语法研究的新拓展》(第四辑)[C],北京大学出版社
丁声树1980[1961]《现代汉语语法讲话》,商务印书馆
范开泰,张亚军2000《现代汉语语法分析》,华东师范大学出版社
冯春田2000《近代汉语语法研究》山东教育出版社
高名凯1986《汉语语法论》商务印书馆
洪波1998《论汉语实词虚化的机制[C].古汉语语法论集》,语文出版社
胡建华、潘海华2003《指称性、离散性与集合：孤岛中的疑问句研究[C].语法研究和探索》(十二),中国语文杂志社编商务印书馆
黄伯荣1984《汉语知识讲话.陈述句、疑问句、祈使句、感叹句》,上海教育出版社
黄居仁,张莉萍,安可思,陈超然1999《词汇语意和句式语意的互动关系[A].中国境内语言暨语言学第五辑：语言中的互动[C]》,中央研究院语言学研究所筹备处
蒋绍愚2005《近代汉语语法史研究综述》,商务印书馆
金锡谟1983《汉语代词例解》,书目文献出版社
静筠二禅师(南唐)1994《祖堂集》,上海古籍出版社影印
黎锦熙1953《新著国语文法》,商务印书馆
林祥楣1984《汉语知识讲话.代词》,上海教育出版社
刘丹青2008《语法调查研究手册》,上海世纪出版股份有限公司/上海教育出版社
刘月华、潘文娱 1983《实用现代汉语语法》,外语教学与研究出版社
刘正光 2006《语言非范畴化》,上海外语教育出版社
罗纳德著 高远 李福印主编 2007《兰艾克认知语法十讲Ten Lectures On Cognitive Grammar by Ronald Langacken》,外语教学与研究出版社
吕叔湘 1980《现代汉语八百词》,商务印书馆1979《汉语语法分析问题》,商务印书馆1982[1943,1944]《中国文法要略》,商务印书馆
吕叔湘著、江蓝生补 1985《近代汉语指代词》学林出版社
廖秋忠 1992《廖秋忠文集》,北京语言学院出版社
陆丙甫 2010《汉语的认知心理研究——结构范畴方法》,商务印书馆
马建忠 《马氏文通》(一),商务印书馆万有文库本
马真 1988《简明实用汉语语法》,北京大学出版社
沈开木 1996《现代汉语话语语言学》,商务印书馆
沈家煊 1999《语法化和形义间的扭曲关系[C].中国语言学的新拓展》,香港城市大学出版社1999《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社
石毓智 2000《语法的认知语义基础》,江西教育出版社2001《语法的形式和理据》,江西教育出版社
束定芳 2008《认知语义学》,上海外语教育出版社
苏渊雷点校 1997《五灯会元》,中华书局
太田辰夫 2003[1958]《中国语历史文法》(修订译本)蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京大学出版社1991 《汉语史通考》,重庆出版社
外国留学生教学小组1975《现代汉语语法分析(试用教材)》,南开大学中文系
王海棻 1985《古汉语疑问词语》,浙江教育出版社
王力 1954《中国语法理论》(下册),中华书局出版1980《汉语史稿》,中华书局1985《中国现代语法》,商务印书馆
王新文、熊文编 2000《汉语听力中级教程A种本》(上),北京语言大学出版社
温锁林 1998《汉语句子的信息安排及其句法后果——以“周遍句”为例[A].三 个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野》,语文出版社
吴福祥、洪波 2003《语法化与语法研究》(一),商务印书馆
邢福义 2002《汉语语法三百问》,商务印书馆1980《现代汉语语法知识》,湖北人民出版社1986《语法问题探讨集》,湖北教育出版社
徐烈炯、刘丹青 1998《话题的结构与功能》,上海教育出版社
徐杰 2001《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京大学出版社
杨树达 1955[1920]《高等国文法》,商务印书馆
张斌 1998《汉语语法学》上海教育出版社
张伯江、方梅 1996《汉语功能语法研究》,江西教育出版社
张静 1987《汉语语法问题》,中国社会科学出版社
张志公 1953《汉语语法常识》,中国青年出版社1991《汉语语法.张志公文集》,广东教育出版社
中国社会科学研究所2000《现代汉语词典》(修订版),商务印书馆
志村良治 1995《中国中世语法史研究》,中华书局
朱德熙 1980《现代汉语语法研究》,商务印书馆1985《语法答问》,商务印书馆1989《语法丛稿》,上海教育出版社
Adele E. Goldberg著 吴海波译 2007[1995]《构式：论元结构的构式语法研究》,北京大学出版社
Allerton, D. J.1979 Essentials of Grammatical Theory:A Consensus View of Syntax and Morphology, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bowerman, M.1978 The acquisition of word meaning:An investigation into some current concepts, In N. Waterson and C. Snow(eds.), The Development of C ommunication, New York:Wiley.
Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca 1985 Cross-Linguistic Comparison and the Development of Grammatical Meaning, In Fisiak, Jacek (ed), Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation.Berlin:Mouton.59-83.
Company, C. C.2002 Grammaticalization and category weakness, In Wischer & Diewald(eds.):201-216.
Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R.1990 'Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse', In W. Nash(ed.), The Writing Scholar:Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,118-36.
Croft. W.1993 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations, Chicago: University Press.
Croft. W.2000 Typology and Universals, Foreigh Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambrideg University Press.
Croft. W.2001 Radical Construction Grammar, Oxford:OUP. Cruse, D. A.
Croft. W.1986 Lexical Semntics. Cambridge, Cambrideg University Press.
Fillmore.C.J 1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul:Hanshin.
Finegan, E.1995 Subjectivity and subjectivisation:an introduction, In Stein & Wright 1995.1-15.
Firth J R.1951/1957 [1934] Papers in Linguistics, London:Oxford University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne.
Firth J R.1982 The Future in Thought and Language:Diachronic Evidence from Romance, Cambrideg:Cambrideg University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1988 Where does prototypicality come from? In Rudzka-Ostyn:207-29.
Gillian, Brown & George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge:NewYorkNew Rochelle Melbourne Sydney:190-223.
Givon, T.1986 Prototypes:Between Plato and Wittgenstein, In Craig(ed.):77-102.
Grice. P.1975 Logic and Conversation, P. Cole and Morgan, Syntax and Semantic: SpeechActs, New York:Academic Press.
Halliday M. A. K.1978 Language as Social Semiotic:The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday M. A. K.1985 Language, Context, and Text, Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday M. A. K.1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2d ed. London: Arnold.
Hampton, J. A.1997 Emergent attributes in combined concepts, In T. B. Ward etc. (eds.):83-110.
Hayden, D. E. and Alworth, E. P. (eds.).1965 Classics in Semantics, London: Vision.
Heider, Keith G. 1970 The Dugum Dani:A Papuan culture in the highlands of West New Guinea, Chicago:Aldine.
Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh.1984 Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African languages, Hamburg:Buske.
Heine, B, Claudi, U. & F. Hunnemeyer.1991 Grammaticalization:A conceptual Framework, Chicago:University of Chicao Press.
Hinds, John 1986 Japanese, London:Croom Helm.
Hyland, K.2000 Disciplinary Discourses:Social Interactions in Academic Writing, London:Longman.
Hyland, K.2008 Metadiscourse, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Continum:BeiJing.
John Lyons 2000 Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press.
Kay, P.1997 Words and the Grammar of Context, Leland Stanford Junior University:CSLI Publications.
Kemmer, S.1992 Grammatical Prototypes and Competing Motivations in a Theory of Linguistic Change, In Davis & Iverson (eds.):145-166.
Kempton, W.1981 The Folk Classification of Ceramics:A Study of Cognitive Prototypes, New York:Academic Press.
Ken Hyland 2008 Metadiscourse. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lakoff, G.1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff George and Mark Turner 1989 More than cool reason:Afield guide to poetic metaphor, Chicago University Press.
Lakoff George 2007 Ten Lectures on Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W.1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. Ⅱ. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1999b Losing control:grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank & Koch (eds.):147-175.
Leech, Geoffrey 1983 Semantics. Penguin Books. London,.
Lyons, J.1977 Semantics.2 vols. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.2000 Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press/Cambridge University Press.
N. Chomsky.1970深层结构、表层结构和语义解释.赵世开译.语言学译丛(第二辑).北京：中国社会科学出版社.
Newmeyer, Fredrick J.1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press.
Ogden C K, Richard I A.1923 The Meaning of Meaning. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Palmer, F. R.2007 Mood and Modality北京：世界图书出版公司剑桥大学出版社：52-58.
Paul J. Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2001 Grammaticalization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press,.
Robert A. Dooley Stephen H. Levinsohn 2008 Analyzing Discourse:A Mannual of Basic Concepts. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Sil International.
Roberts, John R.1987 Amele. London:Routledge.
Rosch. Eleanor 1977 'Human categorization'. In:Neil Warren, ed., Studies in cross-cultural psychology, Vol. I, London, etc:Academic Press,1-49.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1990 The management of a co-operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, 241-259.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Squire, L.R.1987 Memory and Brain, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stephen C. Levinson 2008 Space in Language and Cognition:Exploration in Cognitive Diversity.世界图书出版公司剑桥大学出版社.
Swales, J.1990 Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:CUP.
Talmy, L.1988 The Relation of Grammar to Cognition B. Rudzka-Ostyn. Topics in Cognitive L inguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company:165-205.
Taylor, J. R.2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thomas Fuchs & Hanne De Jaegher 2009 Enactive inter subjectivity:Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Springer Science Business Media B.V.
Traugott, E. C.1982 From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.245-271.
Traugott, E. C.1987 On the Historical Relation between Mental and Speech Act Verbs in English and Japanese. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone et al. (eds.), Papers front the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.561-573.
Traugott, E. C.1995 Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein & Wright 1995:31-54.
F. Ungerer & H. J. Schmid 2001 An Intronduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 10.
Wittgenstein, L. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M 1953 Philosophical Investigations, New York:MacMillan.