英语中的生命度等级研究
|
摘要
生命度作为语言学的重要范畴之一,影响着多种语言现象,具有跨语言的普遍性,引发了语言学各个分支学科的广泛探讨。然而,已有研究未涉及生命度的内涵与本质,对其等级的划分多集中于名词和代词层面,且缺乏系统的分析方法和大规模的语料验证。因此,本研究试图对生命度概念进行深入的理论思考,在其基础上提出生命度等级的分析方法,并使用真实语料对其研究层面进行拓展。
本研究认为,生命度具有体验性、原型范畴性、共性与动态性。即,生命度的本质是一种以人为原型的等级范畴。对生命度的认知是一种从人类视角出发的、以人类为中心的范畴化认知。这种认知基于大脑体验、根源于自然进化,具有普遍共性,同时又具有文化和语境中的动态性。本研究进一步归纳出生命度范畴的八个原型特征及其权重,为生命度等级提供了行之有效的分析框架。
在上述理论视角下,本研究从横、纵两个维度拓展了生命度的研究范围。在横向维度中,将英语中的生命度等级,从原有的名词和代词,扩展到动词和形容词；并从词语层面,扩展到了搭配和语篇层面。这拓展了生命度的研究宽度。在纵向维度,将生命度从静态等级,扩展到动态等级。这拓展了生命度的研究深度。研究过程全部基于BNC语料库与Crown/CLOB语料库,可靠性与代表性较强。
本研究的主要结果如下：1)词语层面存在静态生命度等级。各词类的等级分布不同：名词个数呈“沙漏型”分布,频数呈“蝴蝶型”分布；动词个数呈“橄榄型”分布,频数呈“陀螺型”分布；形容词的个数与频数均呈“金字塔型”分布。并且,不同等级词语所带有的原型特征也不同：词语等级越高,所带特征就越多,特征的权重也越大。2)搭配和语篇层面既存在静态等级,又存在动态等级。生命度等级之所以会发生动态变化,主要是由于转喻、隐喻、限定、及多等级性这四种作用机制。有九种搭配形式经常发生动态变化,它们比其他搭配形式具有更强的动态性。不同语体语篇的生命度等级和动态性也不相同：其中小说语体的生命度最高,动态性最弱；而学术语体的生命度最低,动态性最强。
本研究结果可以广泛应用于文本分类、自动解岐、机器翻译、转隐喻识别、语义错误识别、中介语分析等多个领域。
As one of the most important linguistic categories, animacy has cross-language effects on many linguistic phenomena, which has attracted a lot of discussions from various linguistic disciplines. However, previous studies have not paid much attention to the essence of animacy. The animacy hierarchy proposed therein is limited to nouns and pronouns, and lack of systematic analyses and supportive data. Hence, this research is intended to explore the theoretical issues of animacy, based on which, to propose a feasible analytical method of animacy hierarchy, and then to expand its researching area by using authentic data.
This research proposes that, animacy has empirical, prototypical, universal and dynamic properties. Animacy in essence is a hierarchical category with human beings as the prototype. The perception of animacy is human-centered cognition from human's own perspective. This cognition is embodied and rooted in evolution, therefore has cross-cultural universality. The animacy could be dynamic in different culture or context. This research has further extracted eight prototype features and their weights, which serves as an effective analytical frame for animacy hierarchy.
Based on this viewpoint, this research expands the concept of animacy from two dimensions. On the horizontal dimension, the animacy hierarchy is extended from nouns and pronouns to verbs and adjectives, and then from the lexical level onto the collocational and textual level. On the vertical dimension, the animacy hierarchy is extended from static hierarchy to dynamic hierarchy. This research is based on the BNC corpus and Crown/CLOB corpora, which exhibits a high reliability and representativeness.
This research yields the follow findings:1) There are static animacy hierarchies on the lexical level. Different word classes have different hierarchical distributions: nouns have the "sandglass" distribution in type and "butterfly" distribution in token; verbs have the "olive" distribution in type and "whipping top" distribution in token; adjectives have the "pyramid" distribution in both type and token. Besides, different hierarchies have different prototype features:the higher on the hierarchy, the more features it bears, and more weights of its features.2) There are both static and dynamic hierarchies on the collocational and textual level. The dynamic property of the animacy hierarchy is due to the following four mechanisms:metonymy, metaphor, determiners, and multi-hierarchic nature. There are nine collocations which have higher dynamicity, therefore more likely to have the dynamic animacy. Different genres have different animacy hierarchy and dynamicity:Fictional texts have the highest animacy and lowest dynamicity, while academic texts have the lowest animacy and highest dynamicity.
The findings of this research can be widely applied to the following disciplines: text classification, automatic parsing, machine translation, metonymy/metaphor identifation, sematic error identifation, and interlanguage analysis, etc.
本研究认为,生命度具有体验性、原型范畴性、共性与动态性。即,生命度的本质是一种以人为原型的等级范畴。对生命度的认知是一种从人类视角出发的、以人类为中心的范畴化认知。这种认知基于大脑体验、根源于自然进化,具有普遍共性,同时又具有文化和语境中的动态性。本研究进一步归纳出生命度范畴的八个原型特征及其权重,为生命度等级提供了行之有效的分析框架。
在上述理论视角下,本研究从横、纵两个维度拓展了生命度的研究范围。在横向维度中,将英语中的生命度等级,从原有的名词和代词,扩展到动词和形容词；并从词语层面,扩展到了搭配和语篇层面。这拓展了生命度的研究宽度。在纵向维度,将生命度从静态等级,扩展到动态等级。这拓展了生命度的研究深度。研究过程全部基于BNC语料库与Crown/CLOB语料库,可靠性与代表性较强。
本研究的主要结果如下：1)词语层面存在静态生命度等级。各词类的等级分布不同：名词个数呈“沙漏型”分布,频数呈“蝴蝶型”分布；动词个数呈“橄榄型”分布,频数呈“陀螺型”分布；形容词的个数与频数均呈“金字塔型”分布。并且,不同等级词语所带有的原型特征也不同：词语等级越高,所带特征就越多,特征的权重也越大。2)搭配和语篇层面既存在静态等级,又存在动态等级。生命度等级之所以会发生动态变化,主要是由于转喻、隐喻、限定、及多等级性这四种作用机制。有九种搭配形式经常发生动态变化,它们比其他搭配形式具有更强的动态性。不同语体语篇的生命度等级和动态性也不相同：其中小说语体的生命度最高,动态性最弱；而学术语体的生命度最低,动态性最强。
本研究结果可以广泛应用于文本分类、自动解岐、机器翻译、转隐喻识别、语义错误识别、中介语分析等多个领域。
As one of the most important linguistic categories, animacy has cross-language effects on many linguistic phenomena, which has attracted a lot of discussions from various linguistic disciplines. However, previous studies have not paid much attention to the essence of animacy. The animacy hierarchy proposed therein is limited to nouns and pronouns, and lack of systematic analyses and supportive data. Hence, this research is intended to explore the theoretical issues of animacy, based on which, to propose a feasible analytical method of animacy hierarchy, and then to expand its researching area by using authentic data.
This research proposes that, animacy has empirical, prototypical, universal and dynamic properties. Animacy in essence is a hierarchical category with human beings as the prototype. The perception of animacy is human-centered cognition from human's own perspective. This cognition is embodied and rooted in evolution, therefore has cross-cultural universality. The animacy could be dynamic in different culture or context. This research has further extracted eight prototype features and their weights, which serves as an effective analytical frame for animacy hierarchy.
Based on this viewpoint, this research expands the concept of animacy from two dimensions. On the horizontal dimension, the animacy hierarchy is extended from nouns and pronouns to verbs and adjectives, and then from the lexical level onto the collocational and textual level. On the vertical dimension, the animacy hierarchy is extended from static hierarchy to dynamic hierarchy. This research is based on the BNC corpus and Crown/CLOB corpora, which exhibits a high reliability and representativeness.
This research yields the follow findings:1) There are static animacy hierarchies on the lexical level. Different word classes have different hierarchical distributions: nouns have the "sandglass" distribution in type and "butterfly" distribution in token; verbs have the "olive" distribution in type and "whipping top" distribution in token; adjectives have the "pyramid" distribution in both type and token. Besides, different hierarchies have different prototype features:the higher on the hierarchy, the more features it bears, and more weights of its features.2) There are both static and dynamic hierarchies on the collocational and textual level. The dynamic property of the animacy hierarchy is due to the following four mechanisms:metonymy, metaphor, determiners, and multi-hierarchic nature. There are nine collocations which have higher dynamicity, therefore more likely to have the dynamic animacy. Different genres have different animacy hierarchy and dynamicity:Fictional texts have the highest animacy and lowest dynamicity, while academic texts have the lowest animacy and highest dynamicity.
The findings of this research can be widely applied to the following disciplines: text classification, automatic parsing, machine translation, metonymy/metaphor identifation, sematic error identifation, and interlanguage analysis, etc.
引文
Aissen, J. (1997). On the syntax of obviation. Language 73:705-750.
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673-711.
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking:Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:435-483.
Altmann, L. J. P.& S. Kemper (2006). Effects of age, animacy and activation order on sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21:322-354.
Austin, P. (1981). Case Marking in Southern Pilbara Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1:211-226.
Bedau, M. (1996) The Nature of Life. In M. A. Boden (ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford:Oxford University Press,332-357.
Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116:2023-2067.
Bloom, P. (2009). Religious Belief as an Evolutionary Accident. In J. Schloss & M. Murray (eds). The Believing Primate:Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bock, J. K.& R. K. Warren (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21:47-67.
Bock, J. K. (1986a). Meaning, sound, and syntax:Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12:575-586.
Bock, J. K. (1986b). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18:355-387.
Branigan, H. P.& E. Feleki (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek speech production. In Proceedings of the 21st Cognitive Science Society Conference, Vancouver.
Brazelton, T. B., B. Koslowski & M. Main (1974). The origins of reciprocity:The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (eds.), The effect of the infant on the caregiver. New York:Wiley.
Bresnan, J.& J. Hay. (2008). Gradient grammar:An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118:245-259.
Bresnan, J., C. D. Manning & S. Dingare (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints:voice and person in English and Lummi. In M. Butt & T. H. King (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference. Stanford, CA:CSLI,13-32.
Burgess, C. (1991). Interaction of semantic, syntactic and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Rochester.
Cacoullos, R. T.& J. A. Walker (2009). The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language 85 (2):321-354.
Chao L. L., J. V. Haxby & A. Martin (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience 2: 913-19.
Chao L. L., J. Weisberg & A. Martin (2002). Experience-dependent modulation of category-related cortical activity. Cerebral Cortex 12:545-51.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.2nd ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Cooper, W. E.& J. R. Ross (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossmann, L. J. San & T. J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Creem-Regehr S. H.& J. N. Lee (2005). Neural representations of graspable objects: Are tools special? Cognitive Brain Research 22:457-69.
Crick, F. (1981). Life Itself:Its Origin and Nature. NewYork:Simon & Schuster.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. E.& L. T. Kozlowski (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk:Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9: 353-356.
Dahl, O.& K. Fraurud. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,47-64.
Davison, P. G. (2008). How to Define Life. Florence:The University of North Alabama.
Dittrich, W. H., T. Troscianko, S. E. G. Lea & D. Morgan (1996). Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception 25: 727-738.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. R.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547-619.
Eigen, M.& P. Schuster (1979). The Hypercycle:A principle of natural self-organization. Berlin:Springer.
Evans, V.& M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics:an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Farmer, J. D & A. Belin (2003), Artificial Life:The Coming Evolution.In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer & S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial Life Ⅱ. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press,815-840.
Fauconnier, S. (2011). Differential Agent Marking and animacy. Lingua 121:533-547.
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33:715-736.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1-90.
Gao, T., G. McCarthy & B. J. Scholl (2010). The Wolfpack Effect:Perception of Animacy Irresistibly Influences Interactive Behavior. Psychological Science 21(12):1845-1853.
Gennari, S. P., J. Mirkovic & M. C. MacDonald. (2012). Animacy and Competition in Relative Clause Production:A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology 65:141-176.
Givon, T. (ed.) (1994). Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goren, C. C., M. Sarty & P. Y. K. Wu (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics 56:544-549.
Gregores, E.& J. A. Suarez (1967). A Description of Colloquial Guarani. The Hague: Mouton.
Grewe, T., I. Bornkessel, S. Zysset, R. Wiese, Y. D. von Cramon & M. Schlesewsky. (2007). The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. Neurolmage 35:343-352.
Harris, M. (1978). Noun animacy and the passive voice:A developmental approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 30:495-504.
Heider F.& M. Simmel (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology 57:243-259.
Heron-Delaney, M., S. Wirth & O. Pascalis (2011). Infants' knowledge of their own species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366:1753-1763.
Igoa, J. M. (1996). The relationship between conceptualization and formulation processes in sentence production:some evidence from Spanish. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garca-Albea & N. Sebastin-Galls (eds.), Language Processing in Spanish. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,305-351.
Jablonski, N. G. (2006). Skin:A Natural History. Oakland, CA:University of California Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1978). Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,201-228.
Jelinek, E.& R. Demers (1983). The agency hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167-185.
Jelinek, E. (2000). Datives and argument hierarchies. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1:51-70.
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language:Its nature, development, and origin. London:Allen and Unwin.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London:Allen & Unwin.
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part Ⅲ. Syntax.2nd vol. Heidelberg:Winter.
Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. Ⅵ. Morphology. London:Allen & Unwin.
Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics 14:201-211.
Johnson, M. H., S. Dziurawiec, H. D. Ellis & J. Morton (1991). Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition 40:1-19.
Johnson, S., V. Slaughter & S. Carey (1998). Whose gaze will infants follow? Features that elicit gaze following in 12-month-olds. Developmental Science 1(2):233-238.
Jones, S. S., L. B. Smith & B. Landau (1991). Object Properties and Knowledge in Early Lexical Learning. Child Development 62 (3):499-516.
Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and Conceptual Development:an Ontological Perspective. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Kittila, S. (2008). Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12: 245-268.
Kittila, S., K. Vasti & J. Ylikoski (2011). Case, animacy and semantic roles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Koff, K., P. E. Kramer & B. Fowles. (1980). Effects of event probability and animateness on children's comprehension of active and passive sentences. The Journal of Psychology 104:157-163.
Kuno, S.& E. Kaburaki (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8:625-672.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuppers, B. O. (1985). Molecular Theory of Evolution:Outline of a Physico-Chemical Theory of the Origin of Life. Springer.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh-The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things:what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2:Descriptive Application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1): 1-38.
Legerstee, M., A. Pomerleau, G. Malcuit & H. Feider (1987). The development of infants'responses to people and a doll:Implications for research in communication. Infant Behavior and Development 10:81-95.
Lempert, H. (1989). Animacy constraints on preschool children's acquisition of syntax. Child Development 60:237-245.
Leslie, A. M.& S. Keeble (1987) Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition 25:265-288.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations:A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Lin, Y.& S. M. Garnsey (2011). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose & J. Packard (eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer,241-275.
Lowder, M. W & P. C. Gordon. (2012). The pistol that injured the cowboy:Difficulty with inanimate subject-verb integration is reduced by structural separation. Journal of Memory and Language 66:819-832.
Mak, W. M., W. Vonk & H. Schriefers (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (4):466-490.
Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118:203-221.
Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purpose 10:15-33.
Maynard Smith, J. (1986). The Problems of Biology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought:Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995) Understanding the intention of others:re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31(5),838-850.
Mondloch, C. J., T. L. Lewis, D. R. Budreau & D. Maurer (1999). Face Perception During Early Infancy. Psychological Science 10 (5):419-422.
Monod, J. (1971). Chance and Necessity:An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. New York:Knopf.
Moore, D. G., J. E. Goodwin, R. George, E. L. Axelsson & F. M. B. Braddick (2007). Infants perceive human point-light displays as solid forms. Cognition 104:377-396.
Moore, D. G., R. P. Hobson & A. Lee (1997). Components of person-perception:An investigation with autistic, non-autistic retarded and typically developing children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 15:401-423.
Mumford, L. (1944). The Condition of Man. Harcourt, Brace and Company.
New, J., L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,104 (42),16598-16603.
Nieuwland, M. S.& J. J. A. van Berkum (2006). When peanuts fall in love:N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 1098-1111.
Osborne, C. R. (1974). The Tiwi Language. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Oshima, D. Y. (2007). Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: a typological approach. Linguistics 45 (4):727-763.
Paczynski, M.& G. R. Kuperberg (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26 (9):1402-1456.
Paczynski, M.& G. R. Kuperberg (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing:distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language 67 (4):426-448.
Pae, H. K., B. Schanding, Y. J. Kwon & Y. W. Lee. (2013). Animacy Effect and Language Specificity:Judgment of Unaccusative Verbs by Korean Learners of English as a Foreign Language. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research (03).
Peelen M. V.& P. E. Downing (2005). Selectivity for the human body in the fusiform gyrus. Journal of Neurophysiology 93:603-8.
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley:University of California.
Philipp, M., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, W. Bisang,& M. Schlesewsky. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese:Evidence from auditory even-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 105:112-133.
Poulin-Dubois, D., A. Lepage & D. Ferland (1996). Infants'concept of animacy. Cognitive Development 11:19-36.
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles:Ergative, accusative and active. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar:A Frist Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ray, T. (2003). An Approach to the Synthesis of Life. In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Fanner & S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial Life II. Cambridge, MA:Westview Press, 371-408.
Rosch, E.& C. Mervis (1975). Family resemblances:Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7:573-605.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4:328-350.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (ed.), Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology. London:Academic Press,1-49.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognitive and Categorization. New York:Lawrence Erlbaum,27-48.
Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81:613-644.
Rosenbach, A. (2008). Animacy and grammatical variation -- Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118 (2):151-71.
Runeson, S.& G. Frykholm (1983). Kinematic speciWcation of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception:Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 112:585-615.
Sacks, O. (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales. New York:Summit.
Santos, N. S., B. Kuzmanovic, N. David, A. Rotarska-Jagiela, S. B. Eickhoff, J. N. Shah, G. R. Fink, G. Bente & K. Vogeley (2010). Animated brain:A functional neuroimaging study on animacy experience. Neurolmage 53:291-302.
Schlottmann, A.& E. Ray (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals:do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science 13(1): 1-10.
Schlottmanno, A.& L. Surian (1999). Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance? Perception 28:1105-1113.
Schrodinger, E. (1944). What is Life? Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Shimizu Y. A.& S. C. Johnson (2004). Infants' attribution of a goal to a morphologically unfamiliar agent. Developmental Science 7(4):425-430.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press,112-171.
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition:vol.2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1157-1256.
Spelke, E., A. Phillips & A. Woodward (1995). Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. In D. Sperber, D. Premack & A. J. Premack (eds.), Causal cognition:A multidisciplinary debate. New York:Clarendon Press,44-78.
Szego, P. A.& M. D. Rutherford (2008). Dissociating the perception of speed and the perception of animacy:a functional approach. Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 335-342.
Szewczyk, J. M.& H. Schriefers (2011). Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1368:208-221.
Tanaka, M. N., H. P. Branigan, J. F. McLean & M. J. Pickering. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production:Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 65:318-330.
Traxler, M. J., M. J. Pickering & B. McElree (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language 47:530-547.
Traxler, M. J., R. S. Williams, S. A. Blozis & R. K. Morris (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53:204-224.
Tremoulet, P. D.& J. Feldman (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943-951.
Trueswell, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus,& S. M. Garnsey (1994). Semantic influences on parsing:Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33:285-318.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid (1996). An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Vallortigara, G. (2012). Aristotle and the Chicken:Animacy and the Origins of Beliefs. In A. Fasolo (ed.), The Theory of Evolution and Its Impact. Springer-Verlag Italia, 189-199.
van Nice, K.& R. Dietrich. (2006). Task sensitivity of animacy effects:evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics 41 (5):825-849.
van Valin, R. D.& R. LaPolla. (1997). Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Verstraete, J. C. (2010). Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120 (7):1637-1651.
Wheatley, T., S. C. Milleville & A. Martin (2007). Understanding Animate Agents: Distinct Roles for the Social Network and Mirror System. Psychological Science 18:469-474.
Wiese, H. (2003). Semantics as a gateway to language. In H. Hartl & H. Tappe (eds.), Mediating between concepts and language. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter, 197-222.
Willie, M.,& E. Jelinek (2000). Navajo as a discourse configurational language. In P. Platero & T. Fernald (eds.), The Athabaskan Languages:Perspectives on a Native American Language Family. Oxford:Oxford University Press,252-287.
Woodward, A. (1998) Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 69:1-34.
Wu Fuyun, E. Kaiser & E. Andersen (2011). Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language and Cognitive Processes (1):1-36.
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and Reference:A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
柏格森(1958),《时间与自由意志》。北京：商务印书馆。
柏格森(1989),《创造进化论》。长沙：湖南人民出版社。
陈芬(2005),实践视域中人的本质,《前沿》(10)：46-49。
费尔巴哈(1984a),《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》上卷,荣震华、金山等译。北京：商务印书馆。
费尔巴哈(1984b),《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》下卷,荣震华、金山等译。北京：商务印书馆。
冯契(1996a),《人的自由和真善美》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
冯契(1996b),《认识世界和认识自己》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
弗洛伊德(1986),《弗洛伊德论创造力与无意识》,孙凯祥译。北京：中国展望出版社。
伽达默尔(1994),《哲学解释学》,夏镇平、宋建平译。上海：上海译文出版社。
格雷马斯(1999),《结构语义学：方法研究》,吴泓缈译。北京：三联书店。
海然热(2012),语言人：论语言学对人文科学的贡献,张祖建译。北京：北京大学出版社。
何明珠(2003),英语无灵主语句的理解与翻译,《外语教学》24：51-55。
黑格尔(1958),《历史哲学》,王造时译。北京：三联书店。
侯建东(2011),可及性和生命性对中国学生习得英语关系从句的影响——基于优选论的分析,《外语教学与研究》43(5)：702-711。
黄楠森(2001),简评西方哲学的“人本质”思想,《军队政工理论研究》2(1)：85-88。
卡西尔(1985), 《人论》,甘阳译。上海译文出版社。
康德(2003),《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒,译。北京：人民出版社。
蓝荣策(2001),对人的本质的再认识, 《现代哲学》63：46-50。
李福印(编)(2008),《认知语言学概论》。北京：北京大学出版社。
李建会(2003),生命是什么?《自然辩证法研究》19(4)：86-91。
李金满、吴芙芸(2013),类型学概括与二语学习者汉语关系从句产出研究,《外语教学与研究》45(1)：80-92。
刘宽平、周业芳(2004),英汉思维差异对中国学生EFL写作的影响,《外语学刊》120：107-111。
马克思(2000),《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1960),《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1971),《马克思恩格斯全集》第20卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1979),《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷上册,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1988),《费尔巴哈》。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1995),《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
毛自鹏(2010),从人的本质理论看马克思主义与西方新旧人本主义的区别,《学术论坛》232：9-13。
萨特(1988),《存在主义是一种人道主义》,周煦良、梁永宽译。上海：上海译文出版社。
舍勒(1989),《人在宇宙中的地位》,李伯杰译。贵阳：贵州人民出版社。
王珏(2004),《汉语生命范畴初论》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
王善超(2000),论亚里士多德关于人的本质的三个论断,《北京大学学报》哲学社会科学版37(1)：114-122。
王寅(2007),《认知语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谢林(1977),《先验唯心论体系》。商务印书馆。
亚里士多德(1981),《形而上学》,吴寿彭译。北京：商务印书馆。
亚里士多德(1997a),《亚里士多德全集》第7卷,苗力田译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
亚里士多德(1997b),《亚里士多德全集》第8卷,苗力田译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
亚里士多德(1997c),《亚里士多德全集》第9卷,颜一、秦典华译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
杨海明(2007),生命度与汉语句法的若干问题研究,博士学位论文。暨南大学。
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673-711.
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking:Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:435-483.
Altmann, L. J. P.& S. Kemper (2006). Effects of age, animacy and activation order on sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21:322-354.
Austin, P. (1981). Case Marking in Southern Pilbara Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1:211-226.
Bedau, M. (1996) The Nature of Life. In M. A. Boden (ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford:Oxford University Press,332-357.
Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116:2023-2067.
Bloom, P. (2009). Religious Belief as an Evolutionary Accident. In J. Schloss & M. Murray (eds). The Believing Primate:Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bock, J. K.& R. K. Warren (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21:47-67.
Bock, J. K. (1986a). Meaning, sound, and syntax:Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12:575-586.
Bock, J. K. (1986b). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18:355-387.
Branigan, H. P.& E. Feleki (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek speech production. In Proceedings of the 21st Cognitive Science Society Conference, Vancouver.
Brazelton, T. B., B. Koslowski & M. Main (1974). The origins of reciprocity:The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (eds.), The effect of the infant on the caregiver. New York:Wiley.
Bresnan, J.& J. Hay. (2008). Gradient grammar:An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118:245-259.
Bresnan, J., C. D. Manning & S. Dingare (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints:voice and person in English and Lummi. In M. Butt & T. H. King (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference. Stanford, CA:CSLI,13-32.
Burgess, C. (1991). Interaction of semantic, syntactic and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Rochester.
Cacoullos, R. T.& J. A. Walker (2009). The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language 85 (2):321-354.
Chao L. L., J. V. Haxby & A. Martin (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience 2: 913-19.
Chao L. L., J. Weisberg & A. Martin (2002). Experience-dependent modulation of category-related cortical activity. Cerebral Cortex 12:545-51.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.2nd ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Cooper, W. E.& J. R. Ross (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossmann, L. J. San & T. J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Creem-Regehr S. H.& J. N. Lee (2005). Neural representations of graspable objects: Are tools special? Cognitive Brain Research 22:457-69.
Crick, F. (1981). Life Itself:Its Origin and Nature. NewYork:Simon & Schuster.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. E.& L. T. Kozlowski (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk:Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9: 353-356.
Dahl, O.& K. Fraurud. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,47-64.
Davison, P. G. (2008). How to Define Life. Florence:The University of North Alabama.
Dittrich, W. H., T. Troscianko, S. E. G. Lea & D. Morgan (1996). Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception 25: 727-738.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. R.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547-619.
Eigen, M.& P. Schuster (1979). The Hypercycle:A principle of natural self-organization. Berlin:Springer.
Evans, V.& M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics:an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Farmer, J. D & A. Belin (2003), Artificial Life:The Coming Evolution.In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer & S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial Life Ⅱ. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press,815-840.
Fauconnier, S. (2011). Differential Agent Marking and animacy. Lingua 121:533-547.
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33:715-736.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1-90.
Gao, T., G. McCarthy & B. J. Scholl (2010). The Wolfpack Effect:Perception of Animacy Irresistibly Influences Interactive Behavior. Psychological Science 21(12):1845-1853.
Gennari, S. P., J. Mirkovic & M. C. MacDonald. (2012). Animacy and Competition in Relative Clause Production:A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology 65:141-176.
Givon, T. (ed.) (1994). Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goren, C. C., M. Sarty & P. Y. K. Wu (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics 56:544-549.
Gregores, E.& J. A. Suarez (1967). A Description of Colloquial Guarani. The Hague: Mouton.
Grewe, T., I. Bornkessel, S. Zysset, R. Wiese, Y. D. von Cramon & M. Schlesewsky. (2007). The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. Neurolmage 35:343-352.
Harris, M. (1978). Noun animacy and the passive voice:A developmental approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 30:495-504.
Heider F.& M. Simmel (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology 57:243-259.
Heron-Delaney, M., S. Wirth & O. Pascalis (2011). Infants' knowledge of their own species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366:1753-1763.
Igoa, J. M. (1996). The relationship between conceptualization and formulation processes in sentence production:some evidence from Spanish. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garca-Albea & N. Sebastin-Galls (eds.), Language Processing in Spanish. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,305-351.
Jablonski, N. G. (2006). Skin:A Natural History. Oakland, CA:University of California Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1978). Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,201-228.
Jelinek, E.& R. Demers (1983). The agency hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167-185.
Jelinek, E. (2000). Datives and argument hierarchies. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1:51-70.
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language:Its nature, development, and origin. London:Allen and Unwin.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London:Allen & Unwin.
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part Ⅲ. Syntax.2nd vol. Heidelberg:Winter.
Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. Ⅵ. Morphology. London:Allen & Unwin.
Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics 14:201-211.
Johnson, M. H., S. Dziurawiec, H. D. Ellis & J. Morton (1991). Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition 40:1-19.
Johnson, S., V. Slaughter & S. Carey (1998). Whose gaze will infants follow? Features that elicit gaze following in 12-month-olds. Developmental Science 1(2):233-238.
Jones, S. S., L. B. Smith & B. Landau (1991). Object Properties and Knowledge in Early Lexical Learning. Child Development 62 (3):499-516.
Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and Conceptual Development:an Ontological Perspective. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Kittila, S. (2008). Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12: 245-268.
Kittila, S., K. Vasti & J. Ylikoski (2011). Case, animacy and semantic roles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Koff, K., P. E. Kramer & B. Fowles. (1980). Effects of event probability and animateness on children's comprehension of active and passive sentences. The Journal of Psychology 104:157-163.
Kuno, S.& E. Kaburaki (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8:625-672.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuppers, B. O. (1985). Molecular Theory of Evolution:Outline of a Physico-Chemical Theory of the Origin of Life. Springer.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh-The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things:what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2:Descriptive Application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1): 1-38.
Legerstee, M., A. Pomerleau, G. Malcuit & H. Feider (1987). The development of infants'responses to people and a doll:Implications for research in communication. Infant Behavior and Development 10:81-95.
Lempert, H. (1989). Animacy constraints on preschool children's acquisition of syntax. Child Development 60:237-245.
Leslie, A. M.& S. Keeble (1987) Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition 25:265-288.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations:A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Lin, Y.& S. M. Garnsey (2011). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose & J. Packard (eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer,241-275.
Lowder, M. W & P. C. Gordon. (2012). The pistol that injured the cowboy:Difficulty with inanimate subject-verb integration is reduced by structural separation. Journal of Memory and Language 66:819-832.
Mak, W. M., W. Vonk & H. Schriefers (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (4):466-490.
Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118:203-221.
Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purpose 10:15-33.
Maynard Smith, J. (1986). The Problems of Biology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought:Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995) Understanding the intention of others:re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31(5),838-850.
Mondloch, C. J., T. L. Lewis, D. R. Budreau & D. Maurer (1999). Face Perception During Early Infancy. Psychological Science 10 (5):419-422.
Monod, J. (1971). Chance and Necessity:An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. New York:Knopf.
Moore, D. G., J. E. Goodwin, R. George, E. L. Axelsson & F. M. B. Braddick (2007). Infants perceive human point-light displays as solid forms. Cognition 104:377-396.
Moore, D. G., R. P. Hobson & A. Lee (1997). Components of person-perception:An investigation with autistic, non-autistic retarded and typically developing children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 15:401-423.
Mumford, L. (1944). The Condition of Man. Harcourt, Brace and Company.
New, J., L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,104 (42),16598-16603.
Nieuwland, M. S.& J. J. A. van Berkum (2006). When peanuts fall in love:N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 1098-1111.
Osborne, C. R. (1974). The Tiwi Language. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Oshima, D. Y. (2007). Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: a typological approach. Linguistics 45 (4):727-763.
Paczynski, M.& G. R. Kuperberg (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26 (9):1402-1456.
Paczynski, M.& G. R. Kuperberg (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing:distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language 67 (4):426-448.
Pae, H. K., B. Schanding, Y. J. Kwon & Y. W. Lee. (2013). Animacy Effect and Language Specificity:Judgment of Unaccusative Verbs by Korean Learners of English as a Foreign Language. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research (03).
Peelen M. V.& P. E. Downing (2005). Selectivity for the human body in the fusiform gyrus. Journal of Neurophysiology 93:603-8.
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley:University of California.
Philipp, M., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, W. Bisang,& M. Schlesewsky. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese:Evidence from auditory even-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 105:112-133.
Poulin-Dubois, D., A. Lepage & D. Ferland (1996). Infants'concept of animacy. Cognitive Development 11:19-36.
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles:Ergative, accusative and active. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar:A Frist Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ray, T. (2003). An Approach to the Synthesis of Life. In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Fanner & S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial Life II. Cambridge, MA:Westview Press, 371-408.
Rosch, E.& C. Mervis (1975). Family resemblances:Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7:573-605.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4:328-350.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (ed.), Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology. London:Academic Press,1-49.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognitive and Categorization. New York:Lawrence Erlbaum,27-48.
Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81:613-644.
Rosenbach, A. (2008). Animacy and grammatical variation -- Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118 (2):151-71.
Runeson, S.& G. Frykholm (1983). Kinematic speciWcation of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception:Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 112:585-615.
Sacks, O. (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales. New York:Summit.
Santos, N. S., B. Kuzmanovic, N. David, A. Rotarska-Jagiela, S. B. Eickhoff, J. N. Shah, G. R. Fink, G. Bente & K. Vogeley (2010). Animated brain:A functional neuroimaging study on animacy experience. Neurolmage 53:291-302.
Schlottmann, A.& E. Ray (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals:do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science 13(1): 1-10.
Schlottmanno, A.& L. Surian (1999). Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance? Perception 28:1105-1113.
Schrodinger, E. (1944). What is Life? Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Shimizu Y. A.& S. C. Johnson (2004). Infants' attribution of a goal to a morphologically unfamiliar agent. Developmental Science 7(4):425-430.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press,112-171.
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition:vol.2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1157-1256.
Spelke, E., A. Phillips & A. Woodward (1995). Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. In D. Sperber, D. Premack & A. J. Premack (eds.), Causal cognition:A multidisciplinary debate. New York:Clarendon Press,44-78.
Szego, P. A.& M. D. Rutherford (2008). Dissociating the perception of speed and the perception of animacy:a functional approach. Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 335-342.
Szewczyk, J. M.& H. Schriefers (2011). Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1368:208-221.
Tanaka, M. N., H. P. Branigan, J. F. McLean & M. J. Pickering. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production:Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 65:318-330.
Traxler, M. J., M. J. Pickering & B. McElree (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language 47:530-547.
Traxler, M. J., R. S. Williams, S. A. Blozis & R. K. Morris (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53:204-224.
Tremoulet, P. D.& J. Feldman (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943-951.
Trueswell, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus,& S. M. Garnsey (1994). Semantic influences on parsing:Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33:285-318.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid (1996). An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Vallortigara, G. (2012). Aristotle and the Chicken:Animacy and the Origins of Beliefs. In A. Fasolo (ed.), The Theory of Evolution and Its Impact. Springer-Verlag Italia, 189-199.
van Nice, K.& R. Dietrich. (2006). Task sensitivity of animacy effects:evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics 41 (5):825-849.
van Valin, R. D.& R. LaPolla. (1997). Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Verstraete, J. C. (2010). Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120 (7):1637-1651.
Wheatley, T., S. C. Milleville & A. Martin (2007). Understanding Animate Agents: Distinct Roles for the Social Network and Mirror System. Psychological Science 18:469-474.
Wiese, H. (2003). Semantics as a gateway to language. In H. Hartl & H. Tappe (eds.), Mediating between concepts and language. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter, 197-222.
Willie, M.,& E. Jelinek (2000). Navajo as a discourse configurational language. In P. Platero & T. Fernald (eds.), The Athabaskan Languages:Perspectives on a Native American Language Family. Oxford:Oxford University Press,252-287.
Woodward, A. (1998) Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 69:1-34.
Wu Fuyun, E. Kaiser & E. Andersen (2011). Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language and Cognitive Processes (1):1-36.
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and Reference:A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
柏格森(1958),《时间与自由意志》。北京：商务印书馆。
柏格森(1989),《创造进化论》。长沙：湖南人民出版社。
陈芬(2005),实践视域中人的本质,《前沿》(10)：46-49。
费尔巴哈(1984a),《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》上卷,荣震华、金山等译。北京：商务印书馆。
费尔巴哈(1984b),《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》下卷,荣震华、金山等译。北京：商务印书馆。
冯契(1996a),《人的自由和真善美》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
冯契(1996b),《认识世界和认识自己》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
弗洛伊德(1986),《弗洛伊德论创造力与无意识》,孙凯祥译。北京：中国展望出版社。
伽达默尔(1994),《哲学解释学》,夏镇平、宋建平译。上海：上海译文出版社。
格雷马斯(1999),《结构语义学：方法研究》,吴泓缈译。北京：三联书店。
海然热(2012),语言人：论语言学对人文科学的贡献,张祖建译。北京：北京大学出版社。
何明珠(2003),英语无灵主语句的理解与翻译,《外语教学》24：51-55。
黑格尔(1958),《历史哲学》,王造时译。北京：三联书店。
侯建东(2011),可及性和生命性对中国学生习得英语关系从句的影响——基于优选论的分析,《外语教学与研究》43(5)：702-711。
黄楠森(2001),简评西方哲学的“人本质”思想,《军队政工理论研究》2(1)：85-88。
卡西尔(1985), 《人论》,甘阳译。上海译文出版社。
康德(2003),《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒,译。北京：人民出版社。
蓝荣策(2001),对人的本质的再认识, 《现代哲学》63：46-50。
李福印(编)(2008),《认知语言学概论》。北京：北京大学出版社。
李建会(2003),生命是什么?《自然辩证法研究》19(4)：86-91。
李金满、吴芙芸(2013),类型学概括与二语学习者汉语关系从句产出研究,《外语教学与研究》45(1)：80-92。
刘宽平、周业芳(2004),英汉思维差异对中国学生EFL写作的影响,《外语学刊》120：107-111。
马克思(2000),《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1960),《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1971),《马克思恩格斯全集》第20卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1979),《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷上册,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1988),《费尔巴哈》。北京：人民出版社。
马克思、恩格斯(1995),《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译。北京：人民出版社。
毛自鹏(2010),从人的本质理论看马克思主义与西方新旧人本主义的区别,《学术论坛》232：9-13。
萨特(1988),《存在主义是一种人道主义》,周煦良、梁永宽译。上海：上海译文出版社。
舍勒(1989),《人在宇宙中的地位》,李伯杰译。贵阳：贵州人民出版社。
王珏(2004),《汉语生命范畴初论》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
王善超(2000),论亚里士多德关于人的本质的三个论断,《北京大学学报》哲学社会科学版37(1)：114-122。
王寅(2007),《认知语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谢林(1977),《先验唯心论体系》。商务印书馆。
亚里士多德(1981),《形而上学》,吴寿彭译。北京：商务印书馆。
亚里士多德(1997a),《亚里士多德全集》第7卷,苗力田译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
亚里士多德(1997b),《亚里士多德全集》第8卷,苗力田译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
亚里士多德(1997c),《亚里士多德全集》第9卷,颜一、秦典华译。北京：中国人民大学出版社。
杨海明(2007),生命度与汉语句法的若干问题研究,博士学位论文。暨南大学。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |