英汉双宾句式的认知对比研究
|
摘要
双宾句式以动词后双名词短语并置这一独特的句法构造历来成为语法学家重点关注的研究对象,然而句法派生观、词汇联接和配价观、句式语法观、认知意象观都未能深入分析双宾句式中动词分别与其后双名词短语之间的横组合关系,特别是未能从认知角度探讨动词与双宾句式之间相容性的具体内容。在这些理论的导向下,现有的跨语言对比分析大多把英汉双宾句式之间的差异归因于两种语言中不同的动词词汇化模式,对于英汉语句法同构、语义异质的双宾句式类型学差异缺乏足够的认知动因分析,且未能对英汉几大主要范畴的动词用于双宾句式时呈现的对比性差异作出系统的解释。
本研究旨在从共时的维度探讨隐藏于英汉双宾句式类型差异背后的深层认知动因,对英汉双宾句式的跨语言差异进行了系统性对比与解释。在句式语法的理论基础上,借鉴认知语法用语言单位对用法事件进行概念化的动态语言模型,指出动词所表征的整个事件在双宾句式的形成过程中起着非常重要的作用,提出事件的显性认知化假定(Event Overt Cognitivization Hypothesis,简称EOCH),即事件概念化过程中存在一个显性认知平面,它是基于语言动态用法对事件的显性认知,这种认知表现为遵循或者不同程度地偏离隐性认知平面的强动力模式施-动-受认知结构,显性认知化过程把隐性认知平面的相对稳定而固化的结构依附关系投射成以动词为中心的事件图景结构,将纯粹结构依附关系中的动宾绝对对象关系诠释为动词与事件实体之间的可及性对象关系。概念化主体在投射的过程中,赋予双宾句式中动词一定的显性认知内容,它的不同参数化趋势可以用来解释英汉双宾句式之间的类型差异。
本研究确立事件参与者的本体特征(包括主客体的本体特征和原型给字的认知域)、认知向度、惠益可及性和控制度等四个方面的认知参数,对英汉原型给字、英汉履行给予动词、英汉致使运动动词、英汉二价动词这几类主要的动词用于双宾句或变体进行了系统的对比分析,并就其中表现的差异作出基于认知参数的解释。
英汉原型给字双宾句的主体和客体都有从原型向边缘扩展的趋势：主体都有从原型的强[+施事]和强[+人]向边缘的弱[+施事]和弱[+人]扩展的趋势；客体都有从原型的具象物体向边缘的事件扩展的趋向,形成以事体性和动作性为两极的连续统。客体的事体性和动作性可以被诠释为一个连续统,就抽象度这个参数来说,客体越具体,其事体性和动作性就越强。英汉原型给字双宾句在这方面的共性就在于如果客体指示一个事件,那么较为抽象的事件一般都能诠释为观念性质的实体而被事体化；个性就在于英语中较容易将具体的事件诠释为观念性质的实体并使之事体化,汉语一般很难。与客体扩展的趋势相应,英语"give"在认知域上要比汉语“给”更加宽泛,表现在前者能用于让渡域、力量-动力域、达成域等,而后者大多只能用于让渡域和力量-动力域的感觉子域。换言之,英语"give"在实际的用法事件中有被功能化的趋向,即它常作为一个功能动词和客体名词组合使用来表达完整的语义；汉语“给”的功能化趋向受到较大的限制,在实际的用法事件中它倾向于保留让渡域中物体转移的空间意象结构。然而不同于英语"give",汉语“给”偶尔可和虚指代词“它”连用构成事件性双宾句式,扩展出情态意志用法,表达情感或意志的宣泄,因而在某种程度上建立了其自身与汉语中由虚指代词“它”构成的边缘双宾句式的内部关联。
英语履行给予动词用于to-句式时,概念化主体赋予其强客体取向；它用于with-句式时,概念化主体赋予其稳定目标取向或者弱目标取向；在概念化主体的另类诠释下,概念化主体可能赋予某个可变行为履行给予动词以强目标取向,从而使得它临时与doc-句式相容。英语中某个客体取向的履行给予动词即使在概念化主体的临时诠释下能获得一定程度的目标取向性,但大多是弱目标取向,它只能借助于介词"with"来引出客体,汉语相应的动词在同样的认知机制下却能获得较强的目标取向性,它能以光杆形式或者与“给”字构成复合动词用于双宾句式,表现出比这类英语履行给予动词与双宾句式更高的相容度。履行给予动词可以大致分为提供、奖赏、配备、分发、委托、款待等五个序列性语义集束,它们似乎可以和客体-目标取向连续统形成某种共变的趋势,即动词越是靠近提供、奖赏语义类,它就越可能被赋予不同程度的客体取向,在概念化主体的诠释下就越可能实现于更多的论元结构中；动词越是靠近委托、款待语义类,它就越可能被赋予稳定目标取向,其能实现的论元结构就相对比较单一。
致使运动动词具有用于介词句式和双宾句式的潜势。它用于介词句式时,概念化主体赋予其强客体取向,致使运动事件中的客体内容论元成功竞争到了宾语结构论元位置；它用于双宾句式时,概念化主体赋予其强目标取向,事件中的经事内容论元成功竞争到了宾语结构论元位置。因而某一致使运动动词能否被双宾句式吸纳取决于认知向度>基本层次范畴>语义特征这一蕴含序列,即概念化主体是否赋予其较强目标取向性具有优选的解释权。致使运动动词可以分为寄发、瞬间致使弹道运动、滚滑、按特定方式致使持续伴随运动和驱动等五个语义集束,它们似乎和目标-客体取向连续统形成某种共变的趋势,越是靠近寄发、瞬间致使弹道运动类,其目标取向性越强,越有可能与双宾句式相容,越是靠近按特定方式致使持续伴随运动和驱动类,其客体取向性越强,越有可能与介词句式相容。英汉语中用于双宾句式的致使运动动词主要是寄发类和瞬间致使弹道运动类动词,不过其它类动词在概念化主体的临时诠释下可能会出现跨类效应,英语大多数致使运动动词大多能用于双宾句式,且其客体有隐喻扩展的趋向,而汉语相应的动词用于双宾句式的不多。英汉语中用于双宾句式的典型致使运动动词都是以强目标取向为特征的,然而英语致使运动动词在实际语用事件中用于双宾句式时,相应汉语动词往往和“给”字结构连用,构成双宾句式的各种变体形式,表现出比英语致使运动动词与双宾句式更低的相容度。
创造类动词属于二价动词范畴,它的核心意义表示主体创造出客体,但是这类动词在概念化主体的诠释下,创造出的客体可能使事件的第三方(即邻体)受益,因而创造类动词被概念化主体赋予较高的惠益可及性时,它能用于双宾句式。英汉语创造类动词用于双宾句式时呈现出明显的差异,概念化主体赋予英语创造类动词较高的惠益可及性,而赋予汉语创造类动词极低的惠益可及性。与此相应,英语双宾句式呈现出强句式性,能压缩存在于主体创造客体和邻体体验拥有客体之间的心理距离,一定程度上为创造类动词进入双宾句式提供了动因；汉语双宾句式却呈现出弱句式性,它不能强行压缩主事件和副事件之间的心理距离,形成动词和“给”字结构共现的句法表达,且“给”字结构与光杆动词在句中的相对位置大多取决于创造主事件和体验拥有副事件之间的心理距离性。英语大多数创造类动词能用于双宾句式时,汉语相应的动词在实际语用事件中所表征的主次事件是瞬时接续发生时才能用于双宾句式。创造类动词用于双宾句式时受益者不同的信息状态能在某种程度上影响到惠益可及性的指派,邻体用人称代词编码时,创造类动词用于双宾句式的可接受度会提升,用一般普通名词编码时,其可接受度会降低。
获取类动词也属于二价动词范畴,它的核心意义表示主体获取客体。但是这类动词在概念化主体的诠释下,主体的获取行为能不同程度地控制事件的第三方(即邻体)。英汉获取类动词都有用于双宾句式的潜势,但是概念化主体赋予英语获取类动词比汉语相应动词更低的邻体控制度。英语获取类动词在趋弱控制下,邻体倾向于获得接受者或受益者的语义角色解释；汉语相应动词在趋强控制下,邻体倾向于获得提供者或受损者的语义角色解释。基于英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时对邻体的不同控制度趋势,可以作出如下预测：英语获取类动词在词汇语义上如果是趋强控制,它就尽量避免用于双宾句式；汉语获取类动词在词汇语义上如果是趋弱控制,它也就尽量避免用于双宾句式。从控制度参数解释英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时得到的不同语义解释也就意味着它们用于双宾句式时的整合机制存在差异,英语获取类动词用于双宾句式是原型给字双宾句式隐喻扩展的结果,而汉语相应动词用于双宾句式是领有成分提升句式压制的结果。确立控制度参数一方面能为绝大部分英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时表现出的句法同构而语义异质现象作出解释,也能为少数英语获取类动词用于双宾句式时表达的并非是右向传递意义作出解释,另一方面也有利于将某些用于双宾句式时少有或根本没有传递意义的非获取类动词纳入统一的解释性框架。
事件参与者的本体特征、认知向度、惠益可及性和控制度等参数是概念化主体在将隐性认知平面的以动词为中心的结构依附关系投射成为显性认知平面的以动词为中心的事件图景关系这一过程中确立的,属于显性认知内容,英汉几个主要动词范畴用于双宾句式或变体中呈现出的对比性差异部分印证了EOCH的合理性。从显性认知内容对比分析英汉双宾句式,既继承了句式语法避免不合理的动词多义这一优点,又超越了词汇化差异分析的某些局限性,进一步探索出了动词与句式之间相容性的具体内容,有利于句式语法理论的跨语言应用研究；而认知向度、惠益可及性、控制度等参数具有连续统特征,也为解决句式语法框架下的与格转换问题提供了新的思路。
The double object construction (DOC for short), characterized by the two juxtaposed noun phrases immediately following the matrix verb, has for long become a focus of academic interest, drawing the attention of grammarians from a wide range of linguistic enquiries. However, the generative approach, lexical and valent approach, construction grammar approach and cognitive grammar approach altogether cannot undertake an in-depth examination of the syntagmatic relations between the matrix verb and the two post-verbal noun phrases; particularly, they all lack an adequate exploration of the embodiments concerning the compatibility between the matrix verb and DOC. Guided by these theories, the present cross-linguistic and contrastive analyses available tend to attribute the differences in English and Chinese DOCs to the disparate verbal lexicalization patterns inherent in these two languages, thus providing no proper treatment for the cognitive factors to motivate the typological differences displayed in what seems to be a homogeneous syntactic configuration but a heterogeneous semantic explanation relating to English versus Chinese DOCs.
The present study is intended to explore from a synchronic dimension the underlying cognitive factors that motivate the typological differences in English versus Chinese DOCs in the hope of providing a systematic contrast and a coherent explanation. With the framework of construction grammar as a basis, it draws upon the usage-based dynamic model of language proposed by cognitive grammar, pointing out that the event denoted by the matrix verb plays a key role in the formation of DOC. It puts forward Event Overt Cognitivization Hypothesis (EOCH for short), which goes:There exists in the event conceptualization a plane of overt cognition. Based on the dynamic usage event, it either observes or deviates from the strong force-dynamic model of Agent-Verb-Patient, which is an entrenched cognitive structure at the plane of covert cognition. Overt cognitivization process projects the entrenched dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into a verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. The absolute verb-object relation in dependency is thus alternatively construed as a relation between the verb and its accessible participants. In such a process, the conceptualizer assigns the matrix verb of DOC some certain overt cognition content, whose parametrization trend might be employed to account for the typological differences in English and Chinese DOCs.
The present study proposes four cognitive parameters:ontological features of event participants (including ontological features of Subject & Theme and the cognitive domains in which prototypical 'give' in Engish and 'GEI' in Chinese are used), cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability and undertakes a systematic and contrastive analysis of English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI', fulfilling verbs, caused-motion verbs and two-valency verbs respectively used in DOC. For those identified differences, it aims to seek a cognitive parameter-based explanation.
The Subject and Theme in the English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOC both have a tendency of expanding from prototypical to maginal cases. Specifically, the Subject tends to expand from prototypical strong agency and humanness to less prototypical weak agency and humanness. The Theme tends to expand from prototypical concrete objects to less prototypical abstract events and forms a continuum with thing-ness and act-ness as its two extremes. In terms of abstractness, if the Theme is more concrete, its thing-ness or act-ness turns out to be stronger. The commonness shared by English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOCs lies in the fact that, if the Theme denotes an event, more abstract events can generally be reconstrued and thing-fied to be conceptual entities. The individuality in this respect lies in the fact that while in English more concrete events can also be done in this manner, those counterparts in Chinese can never be. Echoing the trend of Theme expansion, English 'give' seems to be a little wider than Chinese 'GEI' in cognitive domain in the sense that while the former can be used in domains of transfer, force-dynamics and achievement, the latter tends to be restricted to the domain of transfer or the domain of feeling, a sub-domain of force-dynamics. Put it another way, English 'give' tends to be functionalized in usage event and more often than not used in combination with the Theme noun phrase for a complete expression of semantics; Chinese 'GEI' is more restricted in functionalization and tends to preserve in usage event the image-schema of object transfer noticeable in the domain of transfer. In contrast, Chinese 'GEI' occurs occasionally with empty 'TA' to form the so-called eventive ditransitive construction. As it develops a hortative use for the expression of emotion or will release, it motivates to some certain degree the use of empty TA-construction, a marginal DOC frequently found in Mandarine Chinese.
When English fulfilling verbs are used in to-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them a strong theme-orientedness. When they occur in with-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them an invariable or a weak goal-orientedness. Construed alternatively, some certain fufilling verb of variable behavior might be assigned by the conceptualizer a strong goal-orientedness, hence made temporarily compatible with doc-construction. Though some theme-oriented fulfilling verb in English can indeed gain under provisional construal a certain degree of goal-orientedness, the nature of its weak goal-orientedness makes it occur with the preposition 'with' to introduce the Theme. Its Chinese counterparts can, however, achieve for the same reason a strong goal-orientedness, hence they can be used in bare or added suffix form 'GEI' in DOC, displaying a higher compatibility with DOC than English corresponding verbs. Fulfilling verbs can approximately be categorized into six semantic clusters: provide-cluster, award-cluster, equip-cluster, issue-cluster, trust-cluster and regale-cluster, which seem to correlate with the theme-goal oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb adjoins in meaning to provide-or-award cluster, it tends to be assigned different degrees of theme-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in versatile argument structures; if the verb adjoins in meaning to trust-or-regale cluster, it tends to be assigned a steady goal-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in one single argument structure.
Caused-motion verbs have the potential of being used either in prepositional construction (PC for short) or in DOC. When they occur in PC, they are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong theme-orientedness, in which condition the theme-content argument of the caused-motion event succeeds in competing for the structural object argument slot; when they occur in DOC, they are assigned a strong goal-orientedness, in which condition it is the experiencer-content argument that outdoes. Whether a caused-motion verb can be attracted into DOC is then determined by the implication rank'cognitive orientation>basic-level category>semantic feature', viz., whether it is assigned a strong orientedness overwhelmingly qualifies as a first-order explanation. Caused-motion verbs fall into five semantic clusters:send-cluster, throw-class, roll-cluster, carry-cluster and drive-cluster, which seem to correlate with the goal-theme oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb is closer in meaning to send-or-throw cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with DOC for its stronger goal-orientedness; if the verb is closer in meaning to carry-or-drive cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with PC for its stronger theme-orientedness. The major caused-motion verbs that are frequently used in DOC are of the send-or-throw cluster kind. Verbs of other semantic clusters might, however, jump across the given cluster under the conceptualize's provisional construal. While the majority of English caused-motion verbs can be used in DOC and the Theme tends to be metaphorically expanded, their Chinese counterparts seem to be blocked. To remedy this, Chinese caused-motion verbs often occur with 'GEI'-structure to constitute alternatives to DOC, displaying a lower compatibility with DOC than their English counterparts in usage events although strong goal-orientedness has to be a constraining condition for both languages.
Create verbs are of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject brings the Theme into being. The Theme created might, however, benefit a third party (so-called 'Adjoiner') involved in the projected event scene. Once create verbs are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong benefactive accessibility, they can be used in DOC. As to their compatibility with DOC, English and Chinese create verbs differ noticeably in the sense that the conceptualizer assigns the former a much higher benefactive accessibility than the latter. In resonance with this trend, English DOC displays strong construction-ness, which can compress the psychological remoteness cutting across the major creative event and the minor experiencing event to provide some certain motivation for create verbs incorporated in DOC. In contrast, Chinese DOC displays weak construction-ness, which cannot forcefully excute the similar compression. Consequently, Chinese create verbs tend to co-occur syntactically with 'GEI'-structure, whose position relative to the matrix verb is for the most part determined by the psychological remoteness severing the two events. While the majority of English create verbs can be used in DOC, their Chinese counterparts are limited to those which happen and finish instantaneously for the ease of integrating the two events. When create verbs are used in DOC, the information status of the Recepient or Beneficiary might influence the conceptualizer assigning benefactive accessibility. If the Adjoiner is coded in personal pronoun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be enhanced; if it is coded in general common noun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be lowered.
Get verbs are also of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject comes to get hold of the Theme. Under the conceptualizer's provisional construal, however, the Subject's action might more or less excute different degrees of control over a third party (viz. Adjoiner). English and Chinese get verbs both have the potential of being used in DOC, but the conceptualizer tends to assign the former a weaker controllability over the Ajoiner than the latter. When English get verbs occur in DOC, their weak controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Recepient or benefactive interpretation; when Chinese get verbs occur in DOC, their strong controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Provider or malefactive interpretation. Based on this contrastive trend of controllability, it can even be predicted that English get verbs of a lexically strong control flavour or Chinese get verbs of a lexically weak control flavour avoid being attracted into DOC. To account for the typological differences in semantic interpretation in terms of controllability means that English get verbs differ from their Chinese counterparts in integrative mechanism when they are both used in DOC. While it is the prototypical 'give'-DOC that metaphorically coerces the use of English get verbs in DOC, it is the possessor raising construction that highly motivates the use of Chinese get verbs in DOC. The establishment of controllability can, on the one hand, account for the phenomenon 'homogeneous syntactic configuration, heterogeneous semantic interpretation' when the majority of English and Chinese get verbs are used in DOC and the phenomenon that some minor Engish get verbs never receive a transfer-to-the-right interpretation; and on the other hand, it is conducive to bringing into the general interpretive framework those non-get verbs that lack a transfer meaning when they occur in DOC.
The ontological features of event participants, cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability are established when the conceptualizer projects the verb-centered structural dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into the verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. They thus belong to overt cognition contents, with respect to which English and Chinese DOCs exhibit disparaties, partly confirming the plausibility of EOCH. Studying Engish and Chinese DOCs from a perspective of overt cognition contents not only avoids the implausible verb senses, but also goes beyond the limits of different lexicalization models. The exploration of how the construction attracts a verb not only helps in putting the framework of construction grammar to applied cross-linguistic studies, but also helps in solving the problem of dative shift from an alternative view.
本研究旨在从共时的维度探讨隐藏于英汉双宾句式类型差异背后的深层认知动因,对英汉双宾句式的跨语言差异进行了系统性对比与解释。在句式语法的理论基础上,借鉴认知语法用语言单位对用法事件进行概念化的动态语言模型,指出动词所表征的整个事件在双宾句式的形成过程中起着非常重要的作用,提出事件的显性认知化假定(Event Overt Cognitivization Hypothesis,简称EOCH),即事件概念化过程中存在一个显性认知平面,它是基于语言动态用法对事件的显性认知,这种认知表现为遵循或者不同程度地偏离隐性认知平面的强动力模式施-动-受认知结构,显性认知化过程把隐性认知平面的相对稳定而固化的结构依附关系投射成以动词为中心的事件图景结构,将纯粹结构依附关系中的动宾绝对对象关系诠释为动词与事件实体之间的可及性对象关系。概念化主体在投射的过程中,赋予双宾句式中动词一定的显性认知内容,它的不同参数化趋势可以用来解释英汉双宾句式之间的类型差异。
本研究确立事件参与者的本体特征(包括主客体的本体特征和原型给字的认知域)、认知向度、惠益可及性和控制度等四个方面的认知参数,对英汉原型给字、英汉履行给予动词、英汉致使运动动词、英汉二价动词这几类主要的动词用于双宾句或变体进行了系统的对比分析,并就其中表现的差异作出基于认知参数的解释。
英汉原型给字双宾句的主体和客体都有从原型向边缘扩展的趋势：主体都有从原型的强[+施事]和强[+人]向边缘的弱[+施事]和弱[+人]扩展的趋势；客体都有从原型的具象物体向边缘的事件扩展的趋向,形成以事体性和动作性为两极的连续统。客体的事体性和动作性可以被诠释为一个连续统,就抽象度这个参数来说,客体越具体,其事体性和动作性就越强。英汉原型给字双宾句在这方面的共性就在于如果客体指示一个事件,那么较为抽象的事件一般都能诠释为观念性质的实体而被事体化；个性就在于英语中较容易将具体的事件诠释为观念性质的实体并使之事体化,汉语一般很难。与客体扩展的趋势相应,英语"give"在认知域上要比汉语“给”更加宽泛,表现在前者能用于让渡域、力量-动力域、达成域等,而后者大多只能用于让渡域和力量-动力域的感觉子域。换言之,英语"give"在实际的用法事件中有被功能化的趋向,即它常作为一个功能动词和客体名词组合使用来表达完整的语义；汉语“给”的功能化趋向受到较大的限制,在实际的用法事件中它倾向于保留让渡域中物体转移的空间意象结构。然而不同于英语"give",汉语“给”偶尔可和虚指代词“它”连用构成事件性双宾句式,扩展出情态意志用法,表达情感或意志的宣泄,因而在某种程度上建立了其自身与汉语中由虚指代词“它”构成的边缘双宾句式的内部关联。
英语履行给予动词用于to-句式时,概念化主体赋予其强客体取向；它用于with-句式时,概念化主体赋予其稳定目标取向或者弱目标取向；在概念化主体的另类诠释下,概念化主体可能赋予某个可变行为履行给予动词以强目标取向,从而使得它临时与doc-句式相容。英语中某个客体取向的履行给予动词即使在概念化主体的临时诠释下能获得一定程度的目标取向性,但大多是弱目标取向,它只能借助于介词"with"来引出客体,汉语相应的动词在同样的认知机制下却能获得较强的目标取向性,它能以光杆形式或者与“给”字构成复合动词用于双宾句式,表现出比这类英语履行给予动词与双宾句式更高的相容度。履行给予动词可以大致分为提供、奖赏、配备、分发、委托、款待等五个序列性语义集束,它们似乎可以和客体-目标取向连续统形成某种共变的趋势,即动词越是靠近提供、奖赏语义类,它就越可能被赋予不同程度的客体取向,在概念化主体的诠释下就越可能实现于更多的论元结构中；动词越是靠近委托、款待语义类,它就越可能被赋予稳定目标取向,其能实现的论元结构就相对比较单一。
致使运动动词具有用于介词句式和双宾句式的潜势。它用于介词句式时,概念化主体赋予其强客体取向,致使运动事件中的客体内容论元成功竞争到了宾语结构论元位置；它用于双宾句式时,概念化主体赋予其强目标取向,事件中的经事内容论元成功竞争到了宾语结构论元位置。因而某一致使运动动词能否被双宾句式吸纳取决于认知向度>基本层次范畴>语义特征这一蕴含序列,即概念化主体是否赋予其较强目标取向性具有优选的解释权。致使运动动词可以分为寄发、瞬间致使弹道运动、滚滑、按特定方式致使持续伴随运动和驱动等五个语义集束,它们似乎和目标-客体取向连续统形成某种共变的趋势,越是靠近寄发、瞬间致使弹道运动类,其目标取向性越强,越有可能与双宾句式相容,越是靠近按特定方式致使持续伴随运动和驱动类,其客体取向性越强,越有可能与介词句式相容。英汉语中用于双宾句式的致使运动动词主要是寄发类和瞬间致使弹道运动类动词,不过其它类动词在概念化主体的临时诠释下可能会出现跨类效应,英语大多数致使运动动词大多能用于双宾句式,且其客体有隐喻扩展的趋向,而汉语相应的动词用于双宾句式的不多。英汉语中用于双宾句式的典型致使运动动词都是以强目标取向为特征的,然而英语致使运动动词在实际语用事件中用于双宾句式时,相应汉语动词往往和“给”字结构连用,构成双宾句式的各种变体形式,表现出比英语致使运动动词与双宾句式更低的相容度。
创造类动词属于二价动词范畴,它的核心意义表示主体创造出客体,但是这类动词在概念化主体的诠释下,创造出的客体可能使事件的第三方(即邻体)受益,因而创造类动词被概念化主体赋予较高的惠益可及性时,它能用于双宾句式。英汉语创造类动词用于双宾句式时呈现出明显的差异,概念化主体赋予英语创造类动词较高的惠益可及性,而赋予汉语创造类动词极低的惠益可及性。与此相应,英语双宾句式呈现出强句式性,能压缩存在于主体创造客体和邻体体验拥有客体之间的心理距离,一定程度上为创造类动词进入双宾句式提供了动因；汉语双宾句式却呈现出弱句式性,它不能强行压缩主事件和副事件之间的心理距离,形成动词和“给”字结构共现的句法表达,且“给”字结构与光杆动词在句中的相对位置大多取决于创造主事件和体验拥有副事件之间的心理距离性。英语大多数创造类动词能用于双宾句式时,汉语相应的动词在实际语用事件中所表征的主次事件是瞬时接续发生时才能用于双宾句式。创造类动词用于双宾句式时受益者不同的信息状态能在某种程度上影响到惠益可及性的指派,邻体用人称代词编码时,创造类动词用于双宾句式的可接受度会提升,用一般普通名词编码时,其可接受度会降低。
获取类动词也属于二价动词范畴,它的核心意义表示主体获取客体。但是这类动词在概念化主体的诠释下,主体的获取行为能不同程度地控制事件的第三方(即邻体)。英汉获取类动词都有用于双宾句式的潜势,但是概念化主体赋予英语获取类动词比汉语相应动词更低的邻体控制度。英语获取类动词在趋弱控制下,邻体倾向于获得接受者或受益者的语义角色解释；汉语相应动词在趋强控制下,邻体倾向于获得提供者或受损者的语义角色解释。基于英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时对邻体的不同控制度趋势,可以作出如下预测：英语获取类动词在词汇语义上如果是趋强控制,它就尽量避免用于双宾句式；汉语获取类动词在词汇语义上如果是趋弱控制,它也就尽量避免用于双宾句式。从控制度参数解释英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时得到的不同语义解释也就意味着它们用于双宾句式时的整合机制存在差异,英语获取类动词用于双宾句式是原型给字双宾句式隐喻扩展的结果,而汉语相应动词用于双宾句式是领有成分提升句式压制的结果。确立控制度参数一方面能为绝大部分英汉获取类动词用于双宾句式时表现出的句法同构而语义异质现象作出解释,也能为少数英语获取类动词用于双宾句式时表达的并非是右向传递意义作出解释,另一方面也有利于将某些用于双宾句式时少有或根本没有传递意义的非获取类动词纳入统一的解释性框架。
事件参与者的本体特征、认知向度、惠益可及性和控制度等参数是概念化主体在将隐性认知平面的以动词为中心的结构依附关系投射成为显性认知平面的以动词为中心的事件图景关系这一过程中确立的,属于显性认知内容,英汉几个主要动词范畴用于双宾句式或变体中呈现出的对比性差异部分印证了EOCH的合理性。从显性认知内容对比分析英汉双宾句式,既继承了句式语法避免不合理的动词多义这一优点,又超越了词汇化差异分析的某些局限性,进一步探索出了动词与句式之间相容性的具体内容,有利于句式语法理论的跨语言应用研究；而认知向度、惠益可及性、控制度等参数具有连续统特征,也为解决句式语法框架下的与格转换问题提供了新的思路。
The double object construction (DOC for short), characterized by the two juxtaposed noun phrases immediately following the matrix verb, has for long become a focus of academic interest, drawing the attention of grammarians from a wide range of linguistic enquiries. However, the generative approach, lexical and valent approach, construction grammar approach and cognitive grammar approach altogether cannot undertake an in-depth examination of the syntagmatic relations between the matrix verb and the two post-verbal noun phrases; particularly, they all lack an adequate exploration of the embodiments concerning the compatibility between the matrix verb and DOC. Guided by these theories, the present cross-linguistic and contrastive analyses available tend to attribute the differences in English and Chinese DOCs to the disparate verbal lexicalization patterns inherent in these two languages, thus providing no proper treatment for the cognitive factors to motivate the typological differences displayed in what seems to be a homogeneous syntactic configuration but a heterogeneous semantic explanation relating to English versus Chinese DOCs.
The present study is intended to explore from a synchronic dimension the underlying cognitive factors that motivate the typological differences in English versus Chinese DOCs in the hope of providing a systematic contrast and a coherent explanation. With the framework of construction grammar as a basis, it draws upon the usage-based dynamic model of language proposed by cognitive grammar, pointing out that the event denoted by the matrix verb plays a key role in the formation of DOC. It puts forward Event Overt Cognitivization Hypothesis (EOCH for short), which goes:There exists in the event conceptualization a plane of overt cognition. Based on the dynamic usage event, it either observes or deviates from the strong force-dynamic model of Agent-Verb-Patient, which is an entrenched cognitive structure at the plane of covert cognition. Overt cognitivization process projects the entrenched dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into a verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. The absolute verb-object relation in dependency is thus alternatively construed as a relation between the verb and its accessible participants. In such a process, the conceptualizer assigns the matrix verb of DOC some certain overt cognition content, whose parametrization trend might be employed to account for the typological differences in English and Chinese DOCs.
The present study proposes four cognitive parameters:ontological features of event participants (including ontological features of Subject & Theme and the cognitive domains in which prototypical 'give' in Engish and 'GEI' in Chinese are used), cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability and undertakes a systematic and contrastive analysis of English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI', fulfilling verbs, caused-motion verbs and two-valency verbs respectively used in DOC. For those identified differences, it aims to seek a cognitive parameter-based explanation.
The Subject and Theme in the English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOC both have a tendency of expanding from prototypical to maginal cases. Specifically, the Subject tends to expand from prototypical strong agency and humanness to less prototypical weak agency and humanness. The Theme tends to expand from prototypical concrete objects to less prototypical abstract events and forms a continuum with thing-ness and act-ness as its two extremes. In terms of abstractness, if the Theme is more concrete, its thing-ness or act-ness turns out to be stronger. The commonness shared by English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOCs lies in the fact that, if the Theme denotes an event, more abstract events can generally be reconstrued and thing-fied to be conceptual entities. The individuality in this respect lies in the fact that while in English more concrete events can also be done in this manner, those counterparts in Chinese can never be. Echoing the trend of Theme expansion, English 'give' seems to be a little wider than Chinese 'GEI' in cognitive domain in the sense that while the former can be used in domains of transfer, force-dynamics and achievement, the latter tends to be restricted to the domain of transfer or the domain of feeling, a sub-domain of force-dynamics. Put it another way, English 'give' tends to be functionalized in usage event and more often than not used in combination with the Theme noun phrase for a complete expression of semantics; Chinese 'GEI' is more restricted in functionalization and tends to preserve in usage event the image-schema of object transfer noticeable in the domain of transfer. In contrast, Chinese 'GEI' occurs occasionally with empty 'TA' to form the so-called eventive ditransitive construction. As it develops a hortative use for the expression of emotion or will release, it motivates to some certain degree the use of empty TA-construction, a marginal DOC frequently found in Mandarine Chinese.
When English fulfilling verbs are used in to-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them a strong theme-orientedness. When they occur in with-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them an invariable or a weak goal-orientedness. Construed alternatively, some certain fufilling verb of variable behavior might be assigned by the conceptualizer a strong goal-orientedness, hence made temporarily compatible with doc-construction. Though some theme-oriented fulfilling verb in English can indeed gain under provisional construal a certain degree of goal-orientedness, the nature of its weak goal-orientedness makes it occur with the preposition 'with' to introduce the Theme. Its Chinese counterparts can, however, achieve for the same reason a strong goal-orientedness, hence they can be used in bare or added suffix form 'GEI' in DOC, displaying a higher compatibility with DOC than English corresponding verbs. Fulfilling verbs can approximately be categorized into six semantic clusters: provide-cluster, award-cluster, equip-cluster, issue-cluster, trust-cluster and regale-cluster, which seem to correlate with the theme-goal oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb adjoins in meaning to provide-or-award cluster, it tends to be assigned different degrees of theme-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in versatile argument structures; if the verb adjoins in meaning to trust-or-regale cluster, it tends to be assigned a steady goal-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in one single argument structure.
Caused-motion verbs have the potential of being used either in prepositional construction (PC for short) or in DOC. When they occur in PC, they are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong theme-orientedness, in which condition the theme-content argument of the caused-motion event succeeds in competing for the structural object argument slot; when they occur in DOC, they are assigned a strong goal-orientedness, in which condition it is the experiencer-content argument that outdoes. Whether a caused-motion verb can be attracted into DOC is then determined by the implication rank'cognitive orientation>basic-level category>semantic feature', viz., whether it is assigned a strong orientedness overwhelmingly qualifies as a first-order explanation. Caused-motion verbs fall into five semantic clusters:send-cluster, throw-class, roll-cluster, carry-cluster and drive-cluster, which seem to correlate with the goal-theme oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb is closer in meaning to send-or-throw cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with DOC for its stronger goal-orientedness; if the verb is closer in meaning to carry-or-drive cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with PC for its stronger theme-orientedness. The major caused-motion verbs that are frequently used in DOC are of the send-or-throw cluster kind. Verbs of other semantic clusters might, however, jump across the given cluster under the conceptualize's provisional construal. While the majority of English caused-motion verbs can be used in DOC and the Theme tends to be metaphorically expanded, their Chinese counterparts seem to be blocked. To remedy this, Chinese caused-motion verbs often occur with 'GEI'-structure to constitute alternatives to DOC, displaying a lower compatibility with DOC than their English counterparts in usage events although strong goal-orientedness has to be a constraining condition for both languages.
Create verbs are of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject brings the Theme into being. The Theme created might, however, benefit a third party (so-called 'Adjoiner') involved in the projected event scene. Once create verbs are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong benefactive accessibility, they can be used in DOC. As to their compatibility with DOC, English and Chinese create verbs differ noticeably in the sense that the conceptualizer assigns the former a much higher benefactive accessibility than the latter. In resonance with this trend, English DOC displays strong construction-ness, which can compress the psychological remoteness cutting across the major creative event and the minor experiencing event to provide some certain motivation for create verbs incorporated in DOC. In contrast, Chinese DOC displays weak construction-ness, which cannot forcefully excute the similar compression. Consequently, Chinese create verbs tend to co-occur syntactically with 'GEI'-structure, whose position relative to the matrix verb is for the most part determined by the psychological remoteness severing the two events. While the majority of English create verbs can be used in DOC, their Chinese counterparts are limited to those which happen and finish instantaneously for the ease of integrating the two events. When create verbs are used in DOC, the information status of the Recepient or Beneficiary might influence the conceptualizer assigning benefactive accessibility. If the Adjoiner is coded in personal pronoun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be enhanced; if it is coded in general common noun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be lowered.
Get verbs are also of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject comes to get hold of the Theme. Under the conceptualizer's provisional construal, however, the Subject's action might more or less excute different degrees of control over a third party (viz. Adjoiner). English and Chinese get verbs both have the potential of being used in DOC, but the conceptualizer tends to assign the former a weaker controllability over the Ajoiner than the latter. When English get verbs occur in DOC, their weak controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Recepient or benefactive interpretation; when Chinese get verbs occur in DOC, their strong controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Provider or malefactive interpretation. Based on this contrastive trend of controllability, it can even be predicted that English get verbs of a lexically strong control flavour or Chinese get verbs of a lexically weak control flavour avoid being attracted into DOC. To account for the typological differences in semantic interpretation in terms of controllability means that English get verbs differ from their Chinese counterparts in integrative mechanism when they are both used in DOC. While it is the prototypical 'give'-DOC that metaphorically coerces the use of English get verbs in DOC, it is the possessor raising construction that highly motivates the use of Chinese get verbs in DOC. The establishment of controllability can, on the one hand, account for the phenomenon 'homogeneous syntactic configuration, heterogeneous semantic interpretation' when the majority of English and Chinese get verbs are used in DOC and the phenomenon that some minor Engish get verbs never receive a transfer-to-the-right interpretation; and on the other hand, it is conducive to bringing into the general interpretive framework those non-get verbs that lack a transfer meaning when they occur in DOC.
The ontological features of event participants, cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability are established when the conceptualizer projects the verb-centered structural dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into the verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. They thus belong to overt cognition contents, with respect to which English and Chinese DOCs exhibit disparaties, partly confirming the plausibility of EOCH. Studying Engish and Chinese DOCs from a perspective of overt cognition contents not only avoids the implausible verb senses, but also goes beyond the limits of different lexicalization models. The exploration of how the construction attracts a verb not only helps in putting the framework of construction grammar to applied cross-linguistic studies, but also helps in solving the problem of dative shift from an alternative view.
引文
[1]Ai, R.& J-D. Chen. A Puzzle in Chinese Dative Shift[A]. In:M.K.M. Chan & H. Kang (eds.). Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics(2)[C]. Columbus, Ohio:The Ohio State University,2008:527-538.
[2]Ahrens, K. The Meaning of the Double Object Construction in Chinese[A]. In:J. Camacho & L. Choueiri (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics(1)[C]. Los Angeles:GSIL, University of Southern California,1995:1-10.
[3]Aoun, J.& Y-H. A. Li. Scope and Constituency[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1989(20): 141-172.
[4]Barber, C. The English Language:A Historical Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[5]Beck, S.& K. Johnson. Double Object Again[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,2004(35): 97-124.
[6]Bresnan, J. Class Notes[R]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1978.
[7]Bresnan, J. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1982.
[8]Bresnan, J.& J. M. Kanerva. Locative Inversion in Chichewa[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1989(20):1-50.
[9]Bresnan, J.& T. Nikitina. Categoricity and Gradience in the Dative Alternation[Ms.]. Stanford:Stanford University,2003.
[10]Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., et al. Predicting the Dative Alternation [A]. In: G Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.). Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation [C]. Amsterdam:Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences,2007:69-94.
[11]Chomsky, N. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1975.
[12]Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1991.
[13]Croft, W. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[14]Croft, W.& A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[15]Croft, W. Typology and Cognitive Linguistics[A]. In:T. Jassen & G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,1999:61-93.
[16]Cruse, A. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics[M].Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006.
[17]Davidson, D. The Individuation of Events[A]. In:N. Rescher, et al. (eds.). Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel[C]. Dordrecht:Reidel,1969:216-234.
[18]Deane, P. D. Grammar in Mind and Brain:Explorations in Cognitive Syntax[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1992.
[19]Dowty, D. R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M]. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company,1979.
[20]Dryer, M. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative[J]. Language, 1986,62(4):808-845.
[21]Elman, J. L.& J. L. McClelland. Speech Perception as a Cognitive Process:The Interactive Activation Model[A]. In:N. Lass (ed.). Speech and Language(10)[C]. New York:Academic Press,1984:337-374.
[22]Emonds, J. E. Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule[J]. Foundations of Language,1972(8):546-561.
[23]Evans, V.& M. Green. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction[M]. Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2006.
[24]Fauconnier, G.& M. Turner. The Way We Think[M]. New York:Basic Books, 2002.
[25]Fauconnier, G.& M. Turner. Blending as a Central Process of Grammar[A]. In: A. E. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1996:113-130.
[26]Fillmore, C.J. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations[M]. The Hague:Mouton,1965.
[27]Fillmore, C. J. The Case for Case [A]. In:E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory[C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968:1-88.
[28]Fillmore, C. C. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning [A]. In:C. Cogen, et al (eds.). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C]. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society,1975:123-131.
[29]Fillmore, C. J. Scenes-and-Frames Semantics[A]. In:A. Zambolli (ed.). Linguistic Structure Processing[C]. Amsterdam:North Holland Publishing Company,1977:55-82.
[30]Fillmore, C. J. Frame Semantics[A]. In:the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C] Seoul:Hanshin,1982:111-138.
[31]Fried, M.& J-O. Ostman. Construction Grammar:A Thumbnail Sketch[A]. In: M. Fried & J-O. Ostman (eds.). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2004: 11-86.
[32]Goldberg, A. E. The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure:the Case of the English Ditransitive [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1992(3):37-74.
[33]Goldberg, A. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995.
[34]Goldberg, A. E. Patient Arguments of Causative Verbs can be Omitted:The Role of Information Structure in Argument Distribution[J]. Language Science, 2000(23):503-524.
[35]Goldberg, A. E. Argument Realization:The Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors[A]. In:J-O. Ostman & M. Fried (eds.). Construction Grammars:Cognitive Grounding and Theorectical Extensions[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005: 17-43.
[36]Goldberg, A. E. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006.
[37]Green, G. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1974.
[38]Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1990.
[39]Grimshaw, J. Words and Structure[M]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,2005.
[40]Grimshaw, J.& A. Prince. A Prosodic Account of the To-dative Alternation[Ms.]. New Brunswick, NJ.:Rutgers University,1986.
[41]Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., et al. The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English[J]. Language,1989,65(2):203-257.
[42]Gruber, J. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics[M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland,1976.
[43]Haiman, J. Iconic and Economic Motivation[J]. Language,1983(59):781-819.
[44]Hampe, B. From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2005.
[45]Harley, H. Subjects, Events, and Licensing[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1995.
[46]Harley, H. Possession and the Double Object Construction[A]. In P. Pica & J. Rooryck (eds.). Linguistic Variation Yearbook(2)[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2002:29-68.
[47]Heine, B. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997.
[48]Huddleston, R & G. K. Pullum. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[49]Iwata, S. The Role of Verb Meaning in Locative Alternations [A]. In:M. Fied & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:101-118.
[50]Iwata, S. Locative Alternation:A Lexical-constructional Approach[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2008.
[51]Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structures[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1990.
[52]Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press, 1983.
[53]Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[54]Kay, P.& C. J. Fillmore. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations:The What's X Doing Y Construction[J]. Language,1999(75): 1-33.
[55]Kay, P. Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction[A]. In:M. Fied & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction: Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005: 71-98.
[56]Kayne, R. S. On Certain Differences between French and English[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981,20(2):365-424.
[57]Klaiman, M. H. Affectedness and Control:A Typology of Voice System[A]. In: M. Shibatani (ed.). Passive and Voice[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:25-84.
[58]Koizumi, M. Object Agreement Phrases and the Split VP Hypothesis[A]. In:C. Phillips & J. Bobaljik (eds.). Papers on Case and Agreement I, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (18) [C]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1993:99-148.
[59]Krifka, M. Manner in Dative Alternation [A], In:S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen et al. (eds.). WCCFL(18)[C]. Somerville, MA.:Cascadilla Press,1999: 260-271.
[60]Krifka, M. Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation [J]. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics,2004(4):1-32.
[61]Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1981.
[62]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[63]Lambrecht, K. Information Structure and Sentence Form[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[64]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I:Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[65]Langacker, R. W. Concept, Image,and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1990.
[66]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1991.
[67]Langacker, R. W. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
[68]Langacker, R. W. Integration, Grammaticization, and Constructional Meaning[A]. In:M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Constructions:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:157-189.
[69]Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar[A]. In:D. Geerarerts & H. Guyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford:Oxford Univeristy Press,2007:421-462.
[70]Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[71]Larson, R. K. On the Double Object Construction [J], Linguistic Inquiry,1988(3): 335-391.
[72]Larson, R.K. Double Objects Revisited:Reply to Jackendoff [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1990(4):589-632.
[73]Lee, D. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[74]Levin, B. Lexical Semantics in Review:An Introduction[A]. In:B. Levin (ed.). Lexical Semantics in Review. Lexicon Project Working Papers 1[C]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Center for Cognitive Science,1985:1-62.
[75]Levin, B.English Verb Classes and Alternations:A Preliminary Investigation[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1993.
[76]Levin, B.& M. H. Rappaport. Argument Realization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[77]Levin, B. First Objects and Datives:Two of a Kind? [J]. BLS,2006(32):1-15.
[78]Levinson, L.'To'in Two Places in the Dative Alternation[A]. In:S. Arunachalam, T. Scheffler, S. Sundaresan, et al. (eds.). The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1)[C]. Philadelphia, PA.: University of Pennsylvania,2005:155-168.
[79]Li, C. N.& S. A. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar[M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1981.
[80]Li, Y-H. A. Abstract Case in Chinese[D]. Los Angeles:University of Southern California,1985.
[81]Li, Y-H. A. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990.
[82]Liu, F-H. Dative Constructions in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2006, 7(4):863-904.
[83]MacGinnis, M. Phrases and the Syntax of Applicatives[A]. In:M, Kim & U. Stauss (eds.). Proceedings of NELS(31)[C]. Amherst, MA.:GLSA,2001: 333-349.
[84]MacWhinney, B. The Competition Model[A]. In:B. MacWhinney (ed.). Mechanisms of Language Acquisition[C]. Hillsdale, NJ/London:Erlbaum, 1987:249-308.
[85]Mandler, J. The Foundations of Mind:Origins of Conceptual Thought[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
[86]Marantz, A. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1984.
[87]Marantz, A. Implications and Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions[A]. In:S. A. Mchombo (ed.). Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1[C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1993:113-151.
[88]Mazurkewich, I.& L. White. The Acquisition of the Dative Alternation: Unlearning Overgeneratlizations[J]. Cognition,1984(16):261-283.
[89]Michaelis,L. A. Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning[A]. In:H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2003:163-209.
[90]Michaelis, L. A. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A]. In:J-O. Ostman & M. Fried (eds.). Construction Grammars:Cognitve Grounding and Theoretical Extensions[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:45-88.
[91]Mukherjee, J. English Ditransitive Verbs:Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model[M]. Amsterdam and New York:Rodopi,2005.
[92]Nemoto, N. Verbal Polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: some Observations on the Locative Alternation[A]. In:M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:119-136.
[93]Newman, J. The Semantics of Giving in Mandarine Chinese[A]. In:R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1993:433-485.
[94]O'Connor, M. C. The Situated Interpretation of Possessor-Raising[A]. In:M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions:The Form and Meaning[C]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1996:125-156.
[95]Oerhle, R. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1975.
[96]Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition:the Acquisition of Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1989.
[97]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press, 1995.
[98]Rabel, L. Khasi, a Language of Assam[M]. Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press,1961.
[99]Rappaport, M. H.& B:Levin. The English Dative Alternation:The Case for Verb Sensitivity[J]. Journal of Linguistics,2008(44):129-167.
[100]Rappaport, M. H.& B. Levin. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In:M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments:Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford, CA.:CSLI Pubications,1998:97-135.
[101]Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001,
[102]Stefanowitsch, A.& S. Gries. Collostructions:Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2003,8(2):209-243.
[103]Stowell, T. Origins of Phrase Structure[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1981.
[104]Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol. I:Concept Structuring Systems[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,2000.
[105]Tang, T-C. Double Object Constructions in Chinese[A]. In:R. L. Cheng, Y-C. Li& T-C. Tang (eds.). Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics[C]. Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, Taipei:Student,1978: 67-96.
[106]Taylor, J. R. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
[107]Tenny, C. L. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1994.
[108]Tomasello, M. Constructinga Language:A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition[M]. Cambridge, MA.:Harvard University Press,2003.
[109]Trask, R. L. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics[M]. London and New York:Routledge,1999.
[110]Van der Leek, F. Rigid Syntax and Flexible Meaning:The Case of the English Ditransitive[A]. In:A. E. Goldberg (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language[C]. Stanford, CA.:CSLI Publications,1996:321-332.
[111]Van Valin, R. D.& D. P. Wilkins. The Case for'Effector':Case roles, Agents and Agency Revisited[A]. In:M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.) Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996:289-322.
[112]Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy[M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1967.
[113]Wierzbicka, A. The Semantics of Grammar [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988.
[114]Zhang, N. N. Argument Interpretations in the Ditransitive Construction[J]. Nordic Journal of Linguistics,1998(21):179-209.
[115]陈昌来.现代汉语语义平面问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2003.
[116]陈宗利,赵鲲.“吃了他三个苹果”的性质与结构[J].外国语,2009(4)：53-62.
[117]程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[118]邓思颖.汉语方言语法的参数理论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[119]范晓.施事宾语句[J].世界汉语教学,1989(1)：22-25.
[120]范晓.三个平面的语法观[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996.
[121]范晓.汉语的句子类型[M].太原：山西人民出版社,1998.
[122]储泽祥.动宾短语和“服从原则”[J].世界汉语教学,1996(3)：43-49.
[123]古川裕.谈现象句与双宾句的认知特点[J].汉语学习,1997(1)：20-23.
[124]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”与句中名词的“有标性”——“出现、存在、消失”与“有界、无界”[J].当代语言学,2001(3)：264-274.
[125]顾阳.双宾语结构[A].见：徐烈炯.共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争论[C].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,1999：60-90.
[126]郭继懋.领主属宾语[J].中国语文,1990(1):24.
[127]韩丹.认知视角下的双宾句式生成研究[D].上海:复旦大学,2008.
[128]何晓炜.最简方案框架下的英汉双宾语结构生成研究[J].现代外语,2008(1)：1-12.
[129]何晓炜.双及物结构的语义表达研究[J].外语教学与研究,2009(1)：18-24.
[130]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1924[2001].
[131]李剑影.再论“玩它个痛快”[J].汉语学习,2007(2): 55-61.
[132]李宇明.领属关系与双宾句分析[J].语言教学与研究,1996(3)：62-73.
[133]林纾平.英汉双宾结构对比[J].福州师专学报,2000(2)：95-98.
[134]刘利民.双及物构式的“零给予”和“负给予”问题分析[J].外语教学与研究,2009(1)：25-29.
[135]刘乃仲.关于《“打碎了他四个杯子”与约束原则》一文的几点疑问[J].中国语文,2001(6)：555-557.
[136]陆俭明.再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J].中国语文,2002(4)：317-325.
[137]吕叔湘等.现代汉语八百词[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[138]马庆株.现代汉语的双宾语构造[A].见：北京大学中文系.语言学论丛(10)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1983：166-196.
[139]马庆株.动词的直接配价和间接配价[A].见：袁毓林,郭锐.现代汉语配价语法研究(2)[C].北京大学出版社,1998：283-294.
[140]满在江.与双宾语结构形同易质的两类结构[J].语言科学,2004(3)：79-88.
[141]沈家煊.“在”字句和“给”字句[J].电国语文,1999(2)：94-102.
[142]沈家煊.说“偷”和“抢”[J].语言教学与研究,2000a(1)：19-24.
[143]沈家煊.句式和配价[J].中国语文,2000b(4)：291-297.
[144]沈阳,何元建,顾阳.生成语法理论与汉语语法研究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江教育出版社,2001.
[145]沈阳.词义吸收、词形合并和汉语双宾结构的句法构造[J].世界汉语教学,2009(2)：147-159.
[146]沈园.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2007.
[147]石毓智.汉英双宾结构差别的概念化原因[J].外语教学与研究,2004(2)：83-89.
[148]石毓智.语法规律的理据[J].外语教学与研究,2008(6)：409-417.
[149]陶红印.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J].语言研究,2000(3)：21-38.
[150]田朝霞.英语双及物小句的基本概念语义[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(6)：156-159.
[151]王晓凌.说代虚指“他”的双及物式[J].语言教学与研究,2008(3)：12-19.
[152]王寅,简明语义学词典[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1993.
[153]吴静,石毓智.制约语法结构选择的因素——以表达物体传递的结构为例[J].语言教学与研究,2009：(6)：17-24.
[154]邢福义.汉语语法三百问[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[155]熊仲儒.现代汉语中的致使句式[M].合肥：安徽大学出版社,2005.
[156]熊学亮.语言学新解[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.
[157]熊学亮.V+NP+NP结构的线性语用分析[A].见：中国语用学研究会.语用学研究(1)[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2008a：94-102.
[158]熊学亮.试论复合句法标记与动词的语义互动[J].外语教学,2008b(4)：1-5.
[159]熊学亮.增效构式和非增效构式——从Goldberg的两个定义说起[J].外语教学与研究,2009(5)：323-328.
[160]熊学亮,英汉语双宾句式探析[J].外国语,2007(4)：261-267.
[161]熊学亮,杨子."V+NP+NP"结构的语用分析[J].外语与外语教学,2008(6):1-3.
[162]熊学亮,湛朝虎.从PP形式观测双宾构式中的动词[J].外语教学,2009(6)：1-4.
[163]徐德宽.现代汉语双宾构造研究[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004.
[164]徐德宽,周统权.双宾语的选择限制[J].语言研究,2008(1)：84-88.
[165]徐盛桓.试论英语双及物构块式[J].外语教学与研究,2001(2)：81-87.
[166]徐盛桓.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007(4)：253-260.
[167]徐枢.宾语和补语[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1985.
[168]严辰松.“给予”双及物结构中的转喻[J].外语学刊,2007(2)：41-45.
[169]杨成凯.汉语语法理论研究[M].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1996.
[170]袁毓林.语言的认知研究和计算分析[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1998.
[171]袁毓林.无指代词“他”的句法语义功能——从韵律句法和焦点理论的角度看[A].见：中国语言杂志社.语法研究与探索(12)[C].北京：商务印书馆,2003：44-64.
[172]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1998.
[173]袁毓林.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[J].语言研究,2004(4)：1-10.
[174]袁毓林.基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[175]袁毓林.一套汉语动词论元角色的语法指标[J].世界汉语教学,2003(3)：24-36.
[176]湛朝虎,熊学亮.非直接论元性句首NP的认知阐释[J].外语与翻译,2008(1)：32-38.
[177]湛朝虎.领主属宾句的认知语义解释[J].汉语学习,2009(3)：44-51.
[178]张伯江.现代汉语的双及物结构式[J].中国语文,1999(3)：175-184.
[179]张国宪,周国光.索取动词的配价研究[A].见：袁毓林,郭锐.现代汉语配价语法研究(2)[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1998：88-103.
[180]张国宪.制约夺事成分句位实现的语义因素[J].中国语文,2001(6)：85-91.
[181]张建理.英汉双宾语句认知对比研究[J].外国语,2006(6)：28-33.
[182]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学技术出版社,1998.
[183]张宁.汉语双宾语句结构分析[A].见：陆俭明.面临新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究[C].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：212-223.
[184]张勃.英汉双宾句的右向性及其强度差异[J].语言应用研究,2009(8)：103-104.
[185]张亚明.对“吃+食堂”的分析[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008(8)：50-51.
[186]周长银.现代汉语给字句的生成语法研究[J].当代语言学,。2000(3)：155-167.
[187]周国光.现代汉语动词的配价研究[J].汉语学习,1996(2)：40-44.
[188]朱德熙.现代汉语语法研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[189]朱莉莉.“予夺”类双宾句宾语省略的认知分析[J].盐城师范学院学报(哲社版),1999(4)：73-75.
[190]佐佐木勋人.由给予动词构成的处置式[A].见：中国语文杂志社.语法研究和探索(11)[C].商务印书馆,2002：235-245.
[2]Ahrens, K. The Meaning of the Double Object Construction in Chinese[A]. In:J. Camacho & L. Choueiri (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics(1)[C]. Los Angeles:GSIL, University of Southern California,1995:1-10.
[3]Aoun, J.& Y-H. A. Li. Scope and Constituency[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1989(20): 141-172.
[4]Barber, C. The English Language:A Historical Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[5]Beck, S.& K. Johnson. Double Object Again[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,2004(35): 97-124.
[6]Bresnan, J. Class Notes[R]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1978.
[7]Bresnan, J. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1982.
[8]Bresnan, J.& J. M. Kanerva. Locative Inversion in Chichewa[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1989(20):1-50.
[9]Bresnan, J.& T. Nikitina. Categoricity and Gradience in the Dative Alternation[Ms.]. Stanford:Stanford University,2003.
[10]Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., et al. Predicting the Dative Alternation [A]. In: G Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.). Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation [C]. Amsterdam:Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences,2007:69-94.
[11]Chomsky, N. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1975.
[12]Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1991.
[13]Croft, W. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[14]Croft, W.& A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[15]Croft, W. Typology and Cognitive Linguistics[A]. In:T. Jassen & G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,1999:61-93.
[16]Cruse, A. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics[M].Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006.
[17]Davidson, D. The Individuation of Events[A]. In:N. Rescher, et al. (eds.). Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel[C]. Dordrecht:Reidel,1969:216-234.
[18]Deane, P. D. Grammar in Mind and Brain:Explorations in Cognitive Syntax[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1992.
[19]Dowty, D. R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M]. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company,1979.
[20]Dryer, M. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative[J]. Language, 1986,62(4):808-845.
[21]Elman, J. L.& J. L. McClelland. Speech Perception as a Cognitive Process:The Interactive Activation Model[A]. In:N. Lass (ed.). Speech and Language(10)[C]. New York:Academic Press,1984:337-374.
[22]Emonds, J. E. Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule[J]. Foundations of Language,1972(8):546-561.
[23]Evans, V.& M. Green. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction[M]. Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2006.
[24]Fauconnier, G.& M. Turner. The Way We Think[M]. New York:Basic Books, 2002.
[25]Fauconnier, G.& M. Turner. Blending as a Central Process of Grammar[A]. In: A. E. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1996:113-130.
[26]Fillmore, C.J. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations[M]. The Hague:Mouton,1965.
[27]Fillmore, C. J. The Case for Case [A]. In:E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory[C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968:1-88.
[28]Fillmore, C. C. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning [A]. In:C. Cogen, et al (eds.). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C]. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society,1975:123-131.
[29]Fillmore, C. J. Scenes-and-Frames Semantics[A]. In:A. Zambolli (ed.). Linguistic Structure Processing[C]. Amsterdam:North Holland Publishing Company,1977:55-82.
[30]Fillmore, C. J. Frame Semantics[A]. In:the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C] Seoul:Hanshin,1982:111-138.
[31]Fried, M.& J-O. Ostman. Construction Grammar:A Thumbnail Sketch[A]. In: M. Fried & J-O. Ostman (eds.). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2004: 11-86.
[32]Goldberg, A. E. The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure:the Case of the English Ditransitive [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1992(3):37-74.
[33]Goldberg, A. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995.
[34]Goldberg, A. E. Patient Arguments of Causative Verbs can be Omitted:The Role of Information Structure in Argument Distribution[J]. Language Science, 2000(23):503-524.
[35]Goldberg, A. E. Argument Realization:The Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors[A]. In:J-O. Ostman & M. Fried (eds.). Construction Grammars:Cognitive Grounding and Theorectical Extensions[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005: 17-43.
[36]Goldberg, A. E. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006.
[37]Green, G. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1974.
[38]Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1990.
[39]Grimshaw, J. Words and Structure[M]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,2005.
[40]Grimshaw, J.& A. Prince. A Prosodic Account of the To-dative Alternation[Ms.]. New Brunswick, NJ.:Rutgers University,1986.
[41]Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., et al. The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English[J]. Language,1989,65(2):203-257.
[42]Gruber, J. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics[M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland,1976.
[43]Haiman, J. Iconic and Economic Motivation[J]. Language,1983(59):781-819.
[44]Hampe, B. From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2005.
[45]Harley, H. Subjects, Events, and Licensing[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1995.
[46]Harley, H. Possession and the Double Object Construction[A]. In P. Pica & J. Rooryck (eds.). Linguistic Variation Yearbook(2)[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2002:29-68.
[47]Heine, B. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997.
[48]Huddleston, R & G. K. Pullum. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[49]Iwata, S. The Role of Verb Meaning in Locative Alternations [A]. In:M. Fied & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:101-118.
[50]Iwata, S. Locative Alternation:A Lexical-constructional Approach[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2008.
[51]Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structures[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1990.
[52]Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press, 1983.
[53]Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[54]Kay, P.& C. J. Fillmore. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations:The What's X Doing Y Construction[J]. Language,1999(75): 1-33.
[55]Kay, P. Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction[A]. In:M. Fied & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction: Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005: 71-98.
[56]Kayne, R. S. On Certain Differences between French and English[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981,20(2):365-424.
[57]Klaiman, M. H. Affectedness and Control:A Typology of Voice System[A]. In: M. Shibatani (ed.). Passive and Voice[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:25-84.
[58]Koizumi, M. Object Agreement Phrases and the Split VP Hypothesis[A]. In:C. Phillips & J. Bobaljik (eds.). Papers on Case and Agreement I, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (18) [C]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1993:99-148.
[59]Krifka, M. Manner in Dative Alternation [A], In:S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen et al. (eds.). WCCFL(18)[C]. Somerville, MA.:Cascadilla Press,1999: 260-271.
[60]Krifka, M. Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation [J]. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics,2004(4):1-32.
[61]Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1981.
[62]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[63]Lambrecht, K. Information Structure and Sentence Form[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[64]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I:Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[65]Langacker, R. W. Concept, Image,and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1990.
[66]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1991.
[67]Langacker, R. W. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
[68]Langacker, R. W. Integration, Grammaticization, and Constructional Meaning[A]. In:M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Constructions:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:157-189.
[69]Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar[A]. In:D. Geerarerts & H. Guyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford:Oxford Univeristy Press,2007:421-462.
[70]Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[71]Larson, R. K. On the Double Object Construction [J], Linguistic Inquiry,1988(3): 335-391.
[72]Larson, R.K. Double Objects Revisited:Reply to Jackendoff [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1990(4):589-632.
[73]Lee, D. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[74]Levin, B. Lexical Semantics in Review:An Introduction[A]. In:B. Levin (ed.). Lexical Semantics in Review. Lexicon Project Working Papers 1[C]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Center for Cognitive Science,1985:1-62.
[75]Levin, B.English Verb Classes and Alternations:A Preliminary Investigation[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1993.
[76]Levin, B.& M. H. Rappaport. Argument Realization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[77]Levin, B. First Objects and Datives:Two of a Kind? [J]. BLS,2006(32):1-15.
[78]Levinson, L.'To'in Two Places in the Dative Alternation[A]. In:S. Arunachalam, T. Scheffler, S. Sundaresan, et al. (eds.). The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1)[C]. Philadelphia, PA.: University of Pennsylvania,2005:155-168.
[79]Li, C. N.& S. A. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar[M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1981.
[80]Li, Y-H. A. Abstract Case in Chinese[D]. Los Angeles:University of Southern California,1985.
[81]Li, Y-H. A. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990.
[82]Liu, F-H. Dative Constructions in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2006, 7(4):863-904.
[83]MacGinnis, M. Phrases and the Syntax of Applicatives[A]. In:M, Kim & U. Stauss (eds.). Proceedings of NELS(31)[C]. Amherst, MA.:GLSA,2001: 333-349.
[84]MacWhinney, B. The Competition Model[A]. In:B. MacWhinney (ed.). Mechanisms of Language Acquisition[C]. Hillsdale, NJ/London:Erlbaum, 1987:249-308.
[85]Mandler, J. The Foundations of Mind:Origins of Conceptual Thought[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
[86]Marantz, A. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1984.
[87]Marantz, A. Implications and Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions[A]. In:S. A. Mchombo (ed.). Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1[C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1993:113-151.
[88]Mazurkewich, I.& L. White. The Acquisition of the Dative Alternation: Unlearning Overgeneratlizations[J]. Cognition,1984(16):261-283.
[89]Michaelis,L. A. Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning[A]. In:H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2003:163-209.
[90]Michaelis, L. A. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A]. In:J-O. Ostman & M. Fried (eds.). Construction Grammars:Cognitve Grounding and Theoretical Extensions[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:45-88.
[91]Mukherjee, J. English Ditransitive Verbs:Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model[M]. Amsterdam and New York:Rodopi,2005.
[92]Nemoto, N. Verbal Polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: some Observations on the Locative Alternation[A]. In:M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.). Grammatical Construction:Back to the Roots[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:119-136.
[93]Newman, J. The Semantics of Giving in Mandarine Chinese[A]. In:R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1993:433-485.
[94]O'Connor, M. C. The Situated Interpretation of Possessor-Raising[A]. In:M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions:The Form and Meaning[C]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1996:125-156.
[95]Oerhle, R. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1975.
[96]Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition:the Acquisition of Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,1989.
[97]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press, 1995.
[98]Rabel, L. Khasi, a Language of Assam[M]. Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press,1961.
[99]Rappaport, M. H.& B:Levin. The English Dative Alternation:The Case for Verb Sensitivity[J]. Journal of Linguistics,2008(44):129-167.
[100]Rappaport, M. H.& B. Levin. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In:M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments:Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford, CA.:CSLI Pubications,1998:97-135.
[101]Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001,
[102]Stefanowitsch, A.& S. Gries. Collostructions:Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2003,8(2):209-243.
[103]Stowell, T. Origins of Phrase Structure[D]. Cambridge, MA.:MIT,1981.
[104]Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol. I:Concept Structuring Systems[M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press,2000.
[105]Tang, T-C. Double Object Constructions in Chinese[A]. In:R. L. Cheng, Y-C. Li& T-C. Tang (eds.). Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics[C]. Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, Taipei:Student,1978: 67-96.
[106]Taylor, J. R. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
[107]Tenny, C. L. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1994.
[108]Tomasello, M. Constructinga Language:A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition[M]. Cambridge, MA.:Harvard University Press,2003.
[109]Trask, R. L. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics[M]. London and New York:Routledge,1999.
[110]Van der Leek, F. Rigid Syntax and Flexible Meaning:The Case of the English Ditransitive[A]. In:A. E. Goldberg (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language[C]. Stanford, CA.:CSLI Publications,1996:321-332.
[111]Van Valin, R. D.& D. P. Wilkins. The Case for'Effector':Case roles, Agents and Agency Revisited[A]. In:M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.) Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996:289-322.
[112]Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy[M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1967.
[113]Wierzbicka, A. The Semantics of Grammar [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988.
[114]Zhang, N. N. Argument Interpretations in the Ditransitive Construction[J]. Nordic Journal of Linguistics,1998(21):179-209.
[115]陈昌来.现代汉语语义平面问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2003.
[116]陈宗利,赵鲲.“吃了他三个苹果”的性质与结构[J].外国语,2009(4)：53-62.
[117]程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[118]邓思颖.汉语方言语法的参数理论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[119]范晓.施事宾语句[J].世界汉语教学,1989(1)：22-25.
[120]范晓.三个平面的语法观[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996.
[121]范晓.汉语的句子类型[M].太原：山西人民出版社,1998.
[122]储泽祥.动宾短语和“服从原则”[J].世界汉语教学,1996(3)：43-49.
[123]古川裕.谈现象句与双宾句的认知特点[J].汉语学习,1997(1)：20-23.
[124]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”与句中名词的“有标性”——“出现、存在、消失”与“有界、无界”[J].当代语言学,2001(3)：264-274.
[125]顾阳.双宾语结构[A].见：徐烈炯.共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争论[C].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,1999：60-90.
[126]郭继懋.领主属宾语[J].中国语文,1990(1):24.
[127]韩丹.认知视角下的双宾句式生成研究[D].上海:复旦大学,2008.
[128]何晓炜.最简方案框架下的英汉双宾语结构生成研究[J].现代外语,2008(1)：1-12.
[129]何晓炜.双及物结构的语义表达研究[J].外语教学与研究,2009(1)：18-24.
[130]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1924[2001].
[131]李剑影.再论“玩它个痛快”[J].汉语学习,2007(2): 55-61.
[132]李宇明.领属关系与双宾句分析[J].语言教学与研究,1996(3)：62-73.
[133]林纾平.英汉双宾结构对比[J].福州师专学报,2000(2)：95-98.
[134]刘利民.双及物构式的“零给予”和“负给予”问题分析[J].外语教学与研究,2009(1)：25-29.
[135]刘乃仲.关于《“打碎了他四个杯子”与约束原则》一文的几点疑问[J].中国语文,2001(6)：555-557.
[136]陆俭明.再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J].中国语文,2002(4)：317-325.
[137]吕叔湘等.现代汉语八百词[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[138]马庆株.现代汉语的双宾语构造[A].见：北京大学中文系.语言学论丛(10)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1983：166-196.
[139]马庆株.动词的直接配价和间接配价[A].见：袁毓林,郭锐.现代汉语配价语法研究(2)[C].北京大学出版社,1998：283-294.
[140]满在江.与双宾语结构形同易质的两类结构[J].语言科学,2004(3)：79-88.
[141]沈家煊.“在”字句和“给”字句[J].电国语文,1999(2)：94-102.
[142]沈家煊.说“偷”和“抢”[J].语言教学与研究,2000a(1)：19-24.
[143]沈家煊.句式和配价[J].中国语文,2000b(4)：291-297.
[144]沈阳,何元建,顾阳.生成语法理论与汉语语法研究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江教育出版社,2001.
[145]沈阳.词义吸收、词形合并和汉语双宾结构的句法构造[J].世界汉语教学,2009(2)：147-159.
[146]沈园.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2007.
[147]石毓智.汉英双宾结构差别的概念化原因[J].外语教学与研究,2004(2)：83-89.
[148]石毓智.语法规律的理据[J].外语教学与研究,2008(6)：409-417.
[149]陶红印.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J].语言研究,2000(3)：21-38.
[150]田朝霞.英语双及物小句的基本概念语义[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(6)：156-159.
[151]王晓凌.说代虚指“他”的双及物式[J].语言教学与研究,2008(3)：12-19.
[152]王寅,简明语义学词典[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1993.
[153]吴静,石毓智.制约语法结构选择的因素——以表达物体传递的结构为例[J].语言教学与研究,2009：(6)：17-24.
[154]邢福义.汉语语法三百问[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[155]熊仲儒.现代汉语中的致使句式[M].合肥：安徽大学出版社,2005.
[156]熊学亮.语言学新解[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.
[157]熊学亮.V+NP+NP结构的线性语用分析[A].见：中国语用学研究会.语用学研究(1)[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2008a：94-102.
[158]熊学亮.试论复合句法标记与动词的语义互动[J].外语教学,2008b(4)：1-5.
[159]熊学亮.增效构式和非增效构式——从Goldberg的两个定义说起[J].外语教学与研究,2009(5)：323-328.
[160]熊学亮,英汉语双宾句式探析[J].外国语,2007(4)：261-267.
[161]熊学亮,杨子."V+NP+NP"结构的语用分析[J].外语与外语教学,2008(6):1-3.
[162]熊学亮,湛朝虎.从PP形式观测双宾构式中的动词[J].外语教学,2009(6)：1-4.
[163]徐德宽.现代汉语双宾构造研究[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004.
[164]徐德宽,周统权.双宾语的选择限制[J].语言研究,2008(1)：84-88.
[165]徐盛桓.试论英语双及物构块式[J].外语教学与研究,2001(2)：81-87.
[166]徐盛桓.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007(4)：253-260.
[167]徐枢.宾语和补语[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1985.
[168]严辰松.“给予”双及物结构中的转喻[J].外语学刊,2007(2)：41-45.
[169]杨成凯.汉语语法理论研究[M].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1996.
[170]袁毓林.语言的认知研究和计算分析[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1998.
[171]袁毓林.无指代词“他”的句法语义功能——从韵律句法和焦点理论的角度看[A].见：中国语言杂志社.语法研究与探索(12)[C].北京：商务印书馆,2003：44-64.
[172]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1998.
[173]袁毓林.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[J].语言研究,2004(4)：1-10.
[174]袁毓林.基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[175]袁毓林.一套汉语动词论元角色的语法指标[J].世界汉语教学,2003(3)：24-36.
[176]湛朝虎,熊学亮.非直接论元性句首NP的认知阐释[J].外语与翻译,2008(1)：32-38.
[177]湛朝虎.领主属宾句的认知语义解释[J].汉语学习,2009(3)：44-51.
[178]张伯江.现代汉语的双及物结构式[J].中国语文,1999(3)：175-184.
[179]张国宪,周国光.索取动词的配价研究[A].见：袁毓林,郭锐.现代汉语配价语法研究(2)[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1998：88-103.
[180]张国宪.制约夺事成分句位实现的语义因素[J].中国语文,2001(6)：85-91.
[181]张建理.英汉双宾语句认知对比研究[J].外国语,2006(6)：28-33.
[182]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学技术出版社,1998.
[183]张宁.汉语双宾语句结构分析[A].见：陆俭明.面临新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究[C].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：212-223.
[184]张勃.英汉双宾句的右向性及其强度差异[J].语言应用研究,2009(8)：103-104.
[185]张亚明.对“吃+食堂”的分析[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008(8)：50-51.
[186]周长银.现代汉语给字句的生成语法研究[J].当代语言学,。2000(3)：155-167.
[187]周国光.现代汉语动词的配价研究[J].汉语学习,1996(2)：40-44.
[188]朱德熙.现代汉语语法研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[189]朱莉莉.“予夺”类双宾句宾语省略的认知分析[J].盐城师范学院学报(哲社版),1999(4)：73-75.
[190]佐佐木勋人.由给予动词构成的处置式[A].见：中国语文杂志社.语法研究和探索(11)[C].商务印书馆,2002：235-245.