英汉动结式的认知功能分析
|
摘要
本研究在认知功能背景下,借助对比、定量和定性分析手段,结合“自上而下”和“自下而上”的研究思路,以独立小句和完整语篇中英汉动结式为对象,分八章讨论三个问题:英汉动结式的语义表征、语义制约及其异同;英汉动结式的句法结构、联接及其异同;英汉动结式的语篇特征及其异同,并寻求认知功能解释,旨在从动静结合分析中揭示英汉动结式的本质属性,同时兼顾其他语言材料,追求研究结论的普通语言学和语言类型学意义。
研究发现如下:第一,动结式是因果致使事件结构的一种句法化体现,遵循“一因一果”的认知倾向和“直接可见关联”的识解原则;按其语义结构与事件结构的象似性,英汉动结式家族可分四类,构成一个原型等级:典型动结式>准典型动结式>假典型动结式>非典型动结式。第二,动结式是语言内外要素互动制约整合的产物,其可接受性关键取决于自身的高、低层次语义关系、理想的认知模式和交际功能之间的相互协商。第三,动结式的致事本质上是事件性的,是使因事件成分在认知凸显和“转喻剪切”作用下按优先原则做出的选择,形式依赖程度的类型差异使汉语比英语享有更大的致事选择灵活性;进入英汉动结式V的动词排斥如下语义特征:[-谓词性]、[+状态性]、[+静态性]、[+结果]、[-影响性],但存在差异性;经历者不一定遵守DOR原则;英汉动结式的补语存在范畴类别和整合能力差异,前者可为RAP/PP/ADP/NP ,后者可为RAP/VP/NP,其中RAP最强,各类整合具有不对称性和类型倾向性。第四,事件单一界化限制和补语的功能差异共同制约了R的准入条件:语言界化事件的词库或句法手段差异决定了英汉动结式的不对称性;动结式中只有界化事件的R具有互补分布特征,但类比偶尔会生成标记性R。第五,英汉动结式都拥有SVOR,SVRO和SVR语序,都遵循普遍联接规则和受制于多种制约;但存在句式数量、地位和语序类型差异,英语三类语序中SVOR和SVR是非标记性的,SVRO是标记性的,汉语八类语序中SVRO、SVR和“把”字句动结式是非标记性的,SOVR、SVOR、SV1OV2R、SVRO1O2和SV1O1V2RO2是标记性的;英汉动结式分别偏爱间断语序和连续语序,主要受制于语法化程度和语言类型差异。第六,英汉动结式的语篇特征存在异同。不同点是:汉语动结式分布频率高于英语动结式;英汉动结式的语篇分布频率存在语序差异:汉语最高的是SVRO,英语最高的是SVOR。相同点是:不同语类的语篇在动结式的分布上存在差异,语篇的正式程度与动结式频率成反比;在散文语篇中动结式倾向于肯定极性、主动语态和陈述语气、采用小句形式;动结式在语篇和孤立小句中表现出不同的属性特征。这些都可在宏观和微观层面上获得认知功能解释。
The dissertation aims to investigate the nature of English and Chinese VRCs in terms of the differences and similarities in semantics, syntax, functions and their motivations within the framework of our self-constructed cognitive-functional approach. To achieve the aim, the dissertation resorts to the combined research methods of the contrastive, qualitative and quantitative studies of data taken from various sources. And data from other languages or dialects are analysed to confirm and improve our findings from the perspective of language typology and general linguistics. The whole dissertation consists of eight chapters revolving around the detailed examination of and explanation for three problems regarding English and Chinese VRCs: the differences and similarities in semantic representations and semantic constraints; the differences and similarities in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking; the differences and similarities in textual features.
The major findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, VRC syntacticalizes the cause-effect event structure following Direct Visible Relevance Principle and Single Cause-Effect Correspondence Principle. Based on the degree of iconicity between the semantic structure and event structure, the VRC family constitutes a continuum of different degrees of prototypicality: prototypical VRCs > quasi-prototypical VRCs >pseudo-prototypical VRCs > non-prototypical VRCs. Secondly, VRC results from the integration between the intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors, especially, the interaction and negotiation among its high-level and low-level semantics, ICM and communicative functions. Thirdly, the causer is inherently eventive and optimally selected under the interaction of the cognitive prominence and metonymic clipping. Verbs with the following semantic components are generally disallowed to enter English or Chinese VRCs: [-Predicate], [+State], [+Stasis],[+Result],and [-Affectedness]. However, Chinese and English VRCs differ in the following aspects: Chinese VRCs enjoy more freedom in choosing causers than their English counterparts. The undergoer is not necessarily subject to DOR in all cases. Chinese VRCs can have RAP/VP/NP, while its English counterparts can have RAP/ PP/ADP/NP. Different Rs vary in their integration with V, among which, RAP is the most powerful. The VR integration is subject to the asymmetrical and typological tendency in English and Chinese. Fourthly, the interaction between single delimiting constraint and R function division largely determines the VR integration and its entry conditions: VRC denotes a delimited event and its eventive delimitation can be linguistically realized by means of syntax or lexicon, which in turn leads to the syntactic differences of VRCs. Only the event-delimiting Rs are in complementary distribution; however, VRCs with multiple delimiters may be generated by analogy. Fifthly, Differences and similarities can be found in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking: English and Chinese VRCs all can be arranged in the order SVOR, SVRO and SVR, but differ in the number and markedness in the syntactic arrangements: English VRCs have three major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR and SVRO with the first two being unmarked and the last marked. While Chinese has eight major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR, VRC with BA, SOVR、SVOR、SV1OV2R、SVRO1O2 and SV1O1V2RO2, with SVRO, SVR, and VRC with BA being unmarked, and the others marked. English VRCs are largely of discontinuous order, while Chinese VRCs are largely of continuous order, due to their differences in the degree of grammaticalization degree and language typology. Different VCRs in English and Chinese are subject to the general linking rules and particular integrated linking constraints in structure, meaning, cognition, function and communicative needs. Sixthly, English and Chinese VRCs show differences and similarities in their textual features. The similarities lie in the degree of formality of the texts and the degree of prototypicality of the VRCs, which jointly determine the distribution frequency of VRCs: the more formal the text is, the fewer VRCs it has; the more prototypical the VRC is, the more frequent it appears. The differences can be stated as follows: VRCs in proses tend to be clauses in positive polarity, active voice and indicative mood. Chinese and English VRCs are different in that the former enjoy higher frequency than the latter and the most frequent VRC is SVRO in Chinese, but SVOR in English.
研究发现如下:第一,动结式是因果致使事件结构的一种句法化体现,遵循“一因一果”的认知倾向和“直接可见关联”的识解原则;按其语义结构与事件结构的象似性,英汉动结式家族可分四类,构成一个原型等级:典型动结式>准典型动结式>假典型动结式>非典型动结式。第二,动结式是语言内外要素互动制约整合的产物,其可接受性关键取决于自身的高、低层次语义关系、理想的认知模式和交际功能之间的相互协商。第三,动结式的致事本质上是事件性的,是使因事件成分在认知凸显和“转喻剪切”作用下按优先原则做出的选择,形式依赖程度的类型差异使汉语比英语享有更大的致事选择灵活性;进入英汉动结式V的动词排斥如下语义特征:[-谓词性]、[+状态性]、[+静态性]、[+结果]、[-影响性],但存在差异性;经历者不一定遵守DOR原则;英汉动结式的补语存在范畴类别和整合能力差异,前者可为RAP/PP/ADP/NP ,后者可为RAP/VP/NP,其中RAP最强,各类整合具有不对称性和类型倾向性。第四,事件单一界化限制和补语的功能差异共同制约了R的准入条件:语言界化事件的词库或句法手段差异决定了英汉动结式的不对称性;动结式中只有界化事件的R具有互补分布特征,但类比偶尔会生成标记性R。第五,英汉动结式都拥有SVOR,SVRO和SVR语序,都遵循普遍联接规则和受制于多种制约;但存在句式数量、地位和语序类型差异,英语三类语序中SVOR和SVR是非标记性的,SVRO是标记性的,汉语八类语序中SVRO、SVR和“把”字句动结式是非标记性的,SOVR、SVOR、SV1OV2R、SVRO1O2和SV1O1V2RO2是标记性的;英汉动结式分别偏爱间断语序和连续语序,主要受制于语法化程度和语言类型差异。第六,英汉动结式的语篇特征存在异同。不同点是:汉语动结式分布频率高于英语动结式;英汉动结式的语篇分布频率存在语序差异:汉语最高的是SVRO,英语最高的是SVOR。相同点是:不同语类的语篇在动结式的分布上存在差异,语篇的正式程度与动结式频率成反比;在散文语篇中动结式倾向于肯定极性、主动语态和陈述语气、采用小句形式;动结式在语篇和孤立小句中表现出不同的属性特征。这些都可在宏观和微观层面上获得认知功能解释。
The dissertation aims to investigate the nature of English and Chinese VRCs in terms of the differences and similarities in semantics, syntax, functions and their motivations within the framework of our self-constructed cognitive-functional approach. To achieve the aim, the dissertation resorts to the combined research methods of the contrastive, qualitative and quantitative studies of data taken from various sources. And data from other languages or dialects are analysed to confirm and improve our findings from the perspective of language typology and general linguistics. The whole dissertation consists of eight chapters revolving around the detailed examination of and explanation for three problems regarding English and Chinese VRCs: the differences and similarities in semantic representations and semantic constraints; the differences and similarities in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking; the differences and similarities in textual features.
The major findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, VRC syntacticalizes the cause-effect event structure following Direct Visible Relevance Principle and Single Cause-Effect Correspondence Principle. Based on the degree of iconicity between the semantic structure and event structure, the VRC family constitutes a continuum of different degrees of prototypicality: prototypical VRCs > quasi-prototypical VRCs >pseudo-prototypical VRCs > non-prototypical VRCs. Secondly, VRC results from the integration between the intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors, especially, the interaction and negotiation among its high-level and low-level semantics, ICM and communicative functions. Thirdly, the causer is inherently eventive and optimally selected under the interaction of the cognitive prominence and metonymic clipping. Verbs with the following semantic components are generally disallowed to enter English or Chinese VRCs: [-Predicate], [+State], [+Stasis],[+Result],and [-Affectedness]. However, Chinese and English VRCs differ in the following aspects: Chinese VRCs enjoy more freedom in choosing causers than their English counterparts. The undergoer is not necessarily subject to DOR in all cases. Chinese VRCs can have RAP/VP/NP, while its English counterparts can have RAP/ PP/ADP/NP. Different Rs vary in their integration with V, among which, RAP is the most powerful. The VR integration is subject to the asymmetrical and typological tendency in English and Chinese. Fourthly, the interaction between single delimiting constraint and R function division largely determines the VR integration and its entry conditions: VRC denotes a delimited event and its eventive delimitation can be linguistically realized by means of syntax or lexicon, which in turn leads to the syntactic differences of VRCs. Only the event-delimiting Rs are in complementary distribution; however, VRCs with multiple delimiters may be generated by analogy. Fifthly, Differences and similarities can be found in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking: English and Chinese VRCs all can be arranged in the order SVOR, SVRO and SVR, but differ in the number and markedness in the syntactic arrangements: English VRCs have three major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR and SVRO with the first two being unmarked and the last marked. While Chinese has eight major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR, VRC with BA, SOVR、SVOR、SV1OV2R、SVRO1O2 and SV1O1V2RO2, with SVRO, SVR, and VRC with BA being unmarked, and the others marked. English VRCs are largely of discontinuous order, while Chinese VRCs are largely of continuous order, due to their differences in the degree of grammaticalization degree and language typology. Different VCRs in English and Chinese are subject to the general linking rules and particular integrated linking constraints in structure, meaning, cognition, function and communicative needs. Sixthly, English and Chinese VRCs show differences and similarities in their textual features. The similarities lie in the degree of formality of the texts and the degree of prototypicality of the VRCs, which jointly determine the distribution frequency of VRCs: the more formal the text is, the fewer VRCs it has; the more prototypical the VRC is, the more frequent it appears. The differences can be stated as follows: VRCs in proses tend to be clauses in positive polarity, active voice and indicative mood. Chinese and English VRCs are different in that the former enjoy higher frequency than the latter and the most frequent VRC is SVRO in Chinese, but SVOR in English.
引文
北京大学现代汉语语料库: http://ccl.pku.edu.cn/yuliao-contents.ASP.简称:北库或CCL。
台湾中央研究所现代汉语平衡语料库: http:// www.sinica.edu.tw.简称:台库或ASNC。
《小学语文》教材1-12册,人民教育出版社,2004-2008。简称:人小语。
《小学语文》教材1-12册,浙江教育出版社,2004-2008。简称:浙小语。
British National Corpus: http://view.byu.edu.简称:BNC。
American English Corpus: http://view.byu.edu.简称:AEC。
曹广顺、过笑容,中古汉语语法史研究[M]。成都:四川出版集团巴蜀书社,2006。
陈文伯,译艺—英汉汉英双向笔译[C]。北京:世界知识出版社,2004。
程湘清,《论蘅》复音词研究[A],载程湘清主编,西汉汉语研究[C]。济南:山东教育出版社,1984。
德力格尔玛,汉语带结果补语的述补结构在蒙古语中的表达形式[J]。《中央民族大学学报》(汉文哲学社会科学版)第5期,2005。
丁树声等,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1961 / 2004。
董燕萍、梁君英,走近构式语法[J]。《现代外语》第2期,2002。
范开泰,型式语义琐议[A]。载范开泰主编,面向21世纪语言问题再认识[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,2001。
范晓,略论V-R[J]。《语言研究集刊》第1期,1985。
方立、吴平,中心语驱动短语结构语法评介[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,2003。
冯胜利,汉语韵律语法研究[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。
傅玉芳,常用形容词分类词典(第二版)[Z]。上海:上海大学出版社,2007。
高明乐,联接理论的发展与现状[J]。《外语学刊》第2期,2004。
郭继懋、王红旗,粘合补语和组合补语表达差异的认知分析[J]。《世界汉语教学》第2期,2001。
郭锐,述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价语法研究[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1995。
何乐士,《史记》语法特点研究[A]。载程湘清主编,西汉汉语研究[C]。济南:山东教育出版社,1984。
胡建华,题元、论元和语法功能项—格标效应与语言差异[J]。《外语教学与研究》第3期,2007。
胡裕树、范晓,试论语法研究的三个平面[J]。《新疆师范大学学报》第2期,1985。
黄锦章,行为类可能式V-R谓语句的逻辑结构与表层句法现象[J]。《语言研究》第2期,1993。
黄正德,句法分析性和参数理论[P]。IACL大会论文,2004。
蒋绍愚,汉语动结式产生的时代[A]。《国学研究》第6辑,北京:北京大学出版社,1999。
黎锦熙,新著国语文法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1924/1992。
黎意,汉藏语述补结构研究[D]。北京:中央民族大学博士论文,2004。
李临定,动补格句式[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1980。
李临定,动词的宾语和结构的宾语[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,1984。
李平,《世说新语》和《百喻经》中的动补结构[A]。《语言学论丛》第14辑,北京:商务印书馆,1984。
李小荣,对动结式带宾语功能的考察[J]。《汉语学习》第5期,1994。
梁锦祥,说PUT道“放”—汉英动词词汇化对比一例[J]。《华南师范大学学报》第4期,2006。
梁银峰,汉语动补结构的产生与演变[M]。上海:学林出版社,2006。
林元基,《水浒传》述补结构研究[D]。上海:复旦大学博士论文,2007。
刘丹青,作为典型构式句的非典型“连”字句[J]。《语言教学与研究》第4期,2005。
刘丹青,“类型学导论—语言的共性和差异”导读[A]。L. P. Whaley(著),类型学导论—语言的共性和差异[M]。北京:世界图书出版公司,2009。
刘月华等,实用现代汉语语法(增订本)[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2001。
刘正光,语言非范畴化[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006。
刘振平,单音形容词作状语和补语的对比研究[D]。北京:北京语言大学博士论文,2007。
柳士镇,魏晋南北朝历史语法[M]。南京:南京大学,1992。
陆丙甫,定语的外延性、内涵性和称谓性及其顺序[A]。语法研究和探索[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1988。
陆谷孙(主编),英汉大词典[Z]。上海:上海译文出版社,1993。
陆俭明,“VA了”述补结构语义分析[J]。《汉语学习》第1期,1990。
陆俭明,《现代汉语配价语法研究》序[J]。《汉语学习》第4期,1995。
陆俭明,“VA了”述补结构语义分析补议[J]。《汉语学习》第1期,2001。
陆俭明,现代汉语语法研究教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
陆俭明,词语句法、语义的多功能性:对“构式语法”理论的解释[J]。《外国语》第2期,2004。
陆俭明,句法语义联接问题[J]。《外国语》第3期,2006。
陆俭明,构式语法理论的价值与局限[J]。《南京师范大学文学院学报》第1期,2008。
罗思明,当代词汇化研究综合考察[J]。《现代外语》第4期,2007。
吕叔湘,单音节形容词研究—《普通话三千常用词表》(初稿)里140个单音节形容词的分析[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1966。
吕叔湘主编,现代汉语八百词[Z]。北京:商务印书馆,1980。
吕叔湘,中国文法要略[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
吕叔湘,语文杂记[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,1984。
马建忠,马氏文通[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1988。
马庆株,自主动词和非自主动词[J]。《中国语言学报》第3期,1988。
马庆株、王红旗,关于若干语法理论问题的思考[A]。《南开语言学论丛》第3辑,天津:南开大学出版社,2004。
马希文,与动结式动词有关的句式[J]。《中国语文》第6期,1987。
马真、陆俭明,形容词作结果补语情况考察[J]。《汉语学习》第1、4、6期,1997。
梅德明,汉英口译实践[M]。北京:人民教育出版社,1998。
梅祖麟,从汉代的“动、杀”、“动、死”来看动补结构的发展[A]。《语言学论丛》第16辑,北京:商务印书馆,1991。
梅祖麟,梅祖麟语言学论文集[C]。北京:商务印书馆,2007。
孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,动词用法词典[Z]。上海:上海辞书出版社, 2005。
彭国珍,英汉结果补语结构中补语形容词的差异[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,2007。
任鹰,主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析[J]。《中国语文》第4期,2001。
邵敬敏,汉语语义语法论文集[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,2007。
沈家煊,“有界”和“无界”[J]。《中国语文》第5期,1995。
沈家煊,形容词句法功能的标记模式[J]。《中国语文》第4期,1997。
沈家煊,语法研究的分析和综合[J]。《外语教学与研究》第2期,1999。
沈家煊,复句三域“行、知、言”[J]。《中国语文》第3期,2003。
沈家煊,“分析”与“综合”[J]。《语言文字应用》第3期,2005。
沈家煊,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2006。
沈园,句法—语义界面研究[M]。上海:上海教育出版社,2007。
施春宏,汉语动结式的句法语义研究[M]。北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,2008。
施耐庵、罗贯中(著),沙博理(译),水浒传[M]。北京:外文出版社,2005。
石毓智,现代汉语语法系统的建立[M]。北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003。
石毓智,汉语研究的类型学视野[M]。南昌:江西教育出版社,2004。
束定芳,认知语义学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
宋绍年,汉语结果补语的起源再探索[A]。载《缀玉二集》,北京:北京大学出版社,1994。
宋文辉,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[D]。北京大学博士论文,2003。
宋文辉,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2007。
Sybesma, R. &沈阳,结果补语小句分析和小句的内部结构[J]。《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版)第4期,2006。
太田辰夫,中国语历史文法[M]。1957,蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京:北京大学出版社,1987。
太田辰夫,中国语历史文法(修订本)[M]。蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
田朝霞,形义匹配种种[J]。《外语教学》第1期,2007。
王红旗,动结式述补结构配价研究[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价研究[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1995。
王红旗,动结式述补结构的语义是什么[J],《汉语学习》第1期,1996。
王建华,美国总统就职演说[C]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1995。
王力,汉语史稿[M]。北京:中华书局,1943。
王力,汉语史稿(合订本)[M]。北京:中华书局,1958 / 2004。
王力,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1985。
王玲玲、何元建,汉语动结式[C]。杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002。
王维贤,句法分析的三个平面与深层结构[J]。《汉语学习》第4期,1991。
王文斌,转喻的认知构建与解读[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
吴福祥,关于动补结构“V死O”的来源[J]。《古汉语研究》第3期,2000。
谢都全、郭应可,汉语结果结构的小句分析评述及新模式[J]。《外国语》第4期,2008。
熊学亮,认知语用学概论[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
熊学亮、梁晓波,论典型致使结构英汉表达异同[J]。《外语教学与研究》第2期,2004。
熊仲儒,动结式的致事选择[J]。《安徽师范大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第4期,2004。
熊仲儒、刘丽萍,动结式的论元实现[J]。《现代外语》第2期,2006。
许余龙,对比语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
许余龙,篇章回指的功能语用探索[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
严辰松,构式语法论要[J]。《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期,2006。
延俊荣,动结式“V+RV”带宾语情况考察[J]。《汉语学习》第5期,2002。
杨建国,补语式发展试探[A]。载《语法论集》第3期,北京:中华书局,1959。
杨峥琳,现代汉语述结式的不对称研究[D]。北京:北京语言大学博士论文,2006。
袁野,动词意义、构式与体验式理解[J]。《外语教学》第3期,2007。
袁毓林,汉语动词的配价研究[M]。南昌:江西教育出版社,1998。
袁毓林,述结式的结构和意义的不平衡性—从表达功能和历史来源的角度来看[J]。《现代中国语研究》第1期,2000。
袁毓林,述结式配价的控制—还原分析[J]。《中国语文》第5期,2001。
余健萍,使成式的起源和发展[A]。载《语法论集》第2期,北京:中华书局,1957。
詹人凤,动结式短语的表述问题[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1989。
张国宪,延续性形容词的续段结构及其具体表现[J]。《中国语文》第6期,1999。
张国宪,现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2006。
张培基,英译中国现代散文选[C]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
张谊生,现代汉语副词探索[M]。上海:学林出版社,2004。
赵长才,汉语述补结构的历史研究[D]。北京:中国社会科学院研究生院语言系博士学位论文,2000。
赵杨,汉语使动及其中介语表征[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
赵元任,汉语口语语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1979 / 2005。
志村良治,中国中世语法史研究[M]。1984,江蓝生、白维国译,北京:中华书局,1995。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,现代汉语词典(修订本)[Z]。北京:商务印书馆, 1997。
周迟明,汉语的使动性复式动词[J]。《山东大学学报》第1期,1957。
朱德熙,现代汉语形容词研究[J]。《语言研究》第1期,1956。
朱德熙,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
朱德熙,语法答问[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1985。
朱德熙,变换分析的平行性原则[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1986。
朱德熙,朱德熙文集(第1卷)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,1999。
祝敏彻,使成式的起源和发展[J]。《兰州大学学报》第2期,1963。
祝敏彻,汉语史论集[M]。北京:中华书局,2007。
Arnold, J., T. Wasow, A. Losongco & R. Ginstrom. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constitute ordering [J]. Language 76.1,2000, 28-55.
Baker, M. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Beck, S.& K. Johnson. Double objects again [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 2003, 97-123.
Boas, H. Resultative Constructions in Englsh and German [D]. PhD. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2000.
Boas, H. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003.
Bolinger, D. The Phrasal Verb in English [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Borer, H. Structuring Sense I: In Name Only [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005a.
Borer, H. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005b.
Briton, L. & E. C. Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Broccias, C.The need for the resultative network [J]. Berkeley Linguistics Society 26, 2001, 41-52.
Broccias, C. The English Change Network [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
Broccias, C. Towards a history of English resultative constructions: The case of adjective resultative constructions [J]. English and Linguistics 12.1, 2008, 27-54.
Burzio, L. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
Butt, M. & W. Geude. The Pojection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [C]. Stanford: CSLI, 1998.
Campbell, G. Compendium of the World’s Language (2nd) [M]. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Carrier, J. & J. Randall, The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultativs [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 1992, 173-234.
Chao, Yuanren, A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Chomsky, N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use [M]. New York:Praeger, 1986.
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.
Comrie, B. Aspect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Croft, W. Categories and Relations in Syntax: The Clause Level of Organization of Information [D]. Ph.D Dissertation, Stanford: Stanford University,1987.
Croft, W. Possible verbs and event structure [A]. In S. Tsohatzidis (ed.).Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge, 1990.
Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Croft, W. Case marking and semantics of mental verbs [A]. In J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Semantics and Syntax [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
Croft, W. The semantics of subjecthood [A]. In M. Yaguello (ed.). Subjecthood and Subjectivity [C]. Paris: Ophrys, 1994.
Croft, W. Event structure in argument linking [A]. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.).The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [C]. Stanford, California: Centre for the Study of Language and Information, 1998.
Croft, D. & A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2006.
Davidson,D. The logical form of action sentences [A]. In N. Resher (ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action [C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
Davis, A. R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Djiamouri, R. Markers of predication in Shang Bone inscription [A].In H.Chapell(ed.). Sintic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Dowty, D.Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English [P]. Studies in Linguistics, Austin: University of Texas, 2002.
Dowty, D.Word meaning and montague grammar [A]. In D. Dowty (ed.). The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ [C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
Dowty, D.Themantic proto-roles and argument selection [J]. Language 67, 1991, 547-619.
Ellis, J. Towards a General Comparative Linguistics [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. The Syntax of Aspect [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Ettlinger, M. The syntactic behavior of the resultative phrase: evidence for a constructional approach [J]. Language 11, 2006, 213-232.
Evans,V. & M. Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Fillmore, C. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [J]. BLS1, 1975, 123-131.
Fillmore, C. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphor [J]. BLS12, 1986, 95-107.
Fillmore, C. The mechanism of“construction grammar”[J]. BLS14, 1988, 35-55.
Fillmore, C. & P, Kay. Construction grammar [P]. Berkeley: University of California, 1993.
Fried, M. & ?. Jan-Ola. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Garcia, E. Discourse without syntax [A]. In T. Givón (ed.). Syntax and Semantics Vol.12 [C]. New York: Academic Press, Inc, 1979.
Geuder, W. Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Tübingen: Universit?t Tübingen, 2000.
Givón, T. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An anthroplist field trip [A]. In T. Givón (ed.) Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1971.
Givón, T. Syntax and Semantics 12 [C]. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.
Givón, T. Syntax:An Introduction (Vol.1 & 2) [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.
Goldberg, A. It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative [J]. BLS 17, 1991, 368-378.
Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Goldberg, A. The relationship between verbs and constructions [A]. In M. Verspoor, K. Lee & E. Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactic Construction and Construction of Meaning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.
Goldberg, A. Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle:Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Goldberg, A. Construction at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Goldberg, A. & R. Jackendoff. The English resultative as a family of construction [J]. Language 80, 2004, 532-569.
Green, G. Some observation on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs [A]. In P. M. Peranteu(ed.). Papers From The Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1972.
Green, G. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity [M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974.
Greenberg, J.Unversals of Language [C].Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1966.
Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure [M].Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990.
Grimshaw, J. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content [M]. New Brunswick: Ms Rutgers University Press, 1993.
Gu, Yang, The Syntax of Resultative and Causative Compounds in Chinese [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation , Ithaca: Cornell University, 1992.
Haiman, J. Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure [M].Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
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, 2003.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. Change-of-state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Halliday, M. A. K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English [J]. Journal of Linguistics 3, 1967, 37-38.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Intruction to Functional Grammar (2nd) [M]. London: EdwardArnold., 1994.
Higginbotham, J. Sense and Syntax [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Higginbotham, J. Accomplishments [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Hoekstra, T. Small clause results [J]. Lingua 74, 1988, 104-139.
Hoekstra, T. Aspect and theta theory [A]. In Roca (ed).Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
Iwata, S. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations [A]. In M. Fried (ed.). Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990.
Jackendoff, R. Findings of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Jespersen,O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Priniple [M]. London: Allen & Unwin, 1909-1949.
Kemmer, S. & A. Verhagen The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 5, 1995, 115-156.
Koopman, H. Preposition, postpositions, circumpositions and particles [A]. In H. Koopman (ed.). The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads: Collected Essays of Hilda Koopman [C]. London: Routledge, 2000.
Krifka, M. The origins of telicity [A]. In S. Rothstein (ed.). Events and Grammar [C]. Dordrecht: Luuwer Academic Publications, 1998.
Krzeszowski, T.P Tertium comparations [A].In J. Fisiak (ed.).Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems [C]. Berlin: Mouton, 1984.
Lakoff, G. Irregularity in Syntax [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Bloomington: University of Indiana, 1965.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Standard University Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: linguistic Description [M]. Stanford: Standard University Press, 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Langacker, R.W. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning [A]. In M. Fried (ed.). Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.
Leek, F. Rigid syntax and flexible meaning: The case of the English ditransitive [A]. In A. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structures, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.
Levin, B. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Levin, B. & R. Tenny. Lexical subordination[A].In B. Levin & R. Tenny (eds.). Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 24 [C]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Levin, B. All dative verbs are not created equal [P].http//: www.stanford.edu.2005.
Li, C. & S. Thompson, Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley, Los Angeles& London: University of California Press, 1981.
Li, Yafei. On V-V compound in Chinese [J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 82: 177-207, 1990.
Li, Yafei. Structural heads and aspectuality [J]. Language 69.3, 1993, 480-504.
Li, Yafei. The thematic hierarchy and causativity[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 1995, 255-282.
McCawley, J. D. Lexical insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure [A].In B. Darden , C-J. N. Barley & A. Davison (eds.). Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Packard,P. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Perlmutter, M. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothisis [A]. In A.C. Woodbury, F. Ackerman, C. Chicarelo, O. D.Gender, & J. J. Jaeger (eds.). Proceedings of the FourthAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: University of California, 1978.
Peyraube, A. On word order in archaic Chinese [J]. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 26, 1997, 13-20.
Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1989.
Putsejovsky, J. The syntax of event structure [J]. Cognition 41, 1991, 47-81.
Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995.
Quirk, R. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman Publishing Company, 1985.
Rappaport Hovav, R. & B. Levin. Building verb meaning [A]. In M. Utt & W. Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments [C]. Stanford: California University Press, 1998.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. An event structure account of English resultatives [J]. Language 77, 2001, 766-797.
Rappaport Hovav, M & B. Levin. Change-of-state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 274-286.
Rundell, M. Macmillan English Dictionary [Z]. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2002.
Saussure, D. F. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Paris: Payot Press, 1966.
Simpson, J. Resultatives [A]. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A.Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar [C]. Bloomington: Indiana University Club, 1983.
Smith, C. S. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd) [M].Dordrecht: The Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
Snyder, W. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word formation [J]. Language 77, 2001, 324-342.
Song, J. J. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2008.
Summers, D. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [Z].London: Longman Publishing Company, 1995.
Sybesma, R. Causative and Accomplishments: The Case of Chinese BA [D]. Ph.DDissertation, Leiedn: Leiden University, 1992.
Sybesma, R. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1997, 215-262.
Tai, James H-Y. Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese [J]. Language and Linguistics 4.2, 2003, 301-316.
Tai, James H-Y. Conceptual structure and conceptualization in Chinese [J]. Language and Linguistics 6.4, 2005, 539-574.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms [A]. In T. Shopen(ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Talmy, L. Towards a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Tenny, C. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Cambridge: MIT, 1987.
Tenny, C. Aspectual Roles and The Syntax-Semantics Interface [M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
Tenny, C. & J. Putsejovsky. Events as Grammatical Objects [C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 2000.
Tsuzuki, M. Geruman-syogo-ni mirareru haseitekikkakoubun-ni kansuru ichkousatsu [A]. In N. Ono (ed.). Kekkoubunkenkyu-no shinshiten [C]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, 2007.
Tsuneko, N. Resultative phrases in Japanese as modifier [P]. http//: www. nict.go.jp/x/x161/en/member/bond/hpsg-2008/abs/nakazawa.pdf, 2008.
Ungerer, F. & J. Schmidt. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity [J]. Language 66: 221-60, 1990.
Van Valin, D. Jr. & R. Lapolla. Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Vendler, Z. Verbs and times [J]. The Philosophical Review 66, 1957, 143-160.
Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.
Visser, T. An Historical Syntax of the English Language [M]. Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1963.
Washio, R. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation [J].Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1997, 1-49.
Wechsler, S. An Analysis of English resultatives under the‘event-argument homomorphism’model of telicity [A]. In A. Woodbury & R. Lariviere (eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure [C]. Austin: University of Texas, 2001.
Wechsler, S. Resultatives under the‘event-argument homomorphism’model of telicity[A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.).The Syntax of Aspect [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Whaley, L. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language [M]. Beijing: The World Publisher, 2009.
Williams, A. Small clause in English [A]. In J. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol 4. [C]. Orlando: Academic Press, 1975
Williams, A. Word order in resultatives [A]. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics [C]. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 2008.
台湾中央研究所现代汉语平衡语料库: http:// www.sinica.edu.tw.简称:台库或ASNC。
《小学语文》教材1-12册,人民教育出版社,2004-2008。简称:人小语。
《小学语文》教材1-12册,浙江教育出版社,2004-2008。简称:浙小语。
British National Corpus: http://view.byu.edu.简称:BNC。
American English Corpus: http://view.byu.edu.简称:AEC。
曹广顺、过笑容,中古汉语语法史研究[M]。成都:四川出版集团巴蜀书社,2006。
陈文伯,译艺—英汉汉英双向笔译[C]。北京:世界知识出版社,2004。
程湘清,《论蘅》复音词研究[A],载程湘清主编,西汉汉语研究[C]。济南:山东教育出版社,1984。
德力格尔玛,汉语带结果补语的述补结构在蒙古语中的表达形式[J]。《中央民族大学学报》(汉文哲学社会科学版)第5期,2005。
丁树声等,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1961 / 2004。
董燕萍、梁君英,走近构式语法[J]。《现代外语》第2期,2002。
范开泰,型式语义琐议[A]。载范开泰主编,面向21世纪语言问题再认识[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,2001。
范晓,略论V-R[J]。《语言研究集刊》第1期,1985。
方立、吴平,中心语驱动短语结构语法评介[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,2003。
冯胜利,汉语韵律语法研究[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。
傅玉芳,常用形容词分类词典(第二版)[Z]。上海:上海大学出版社,2007。
高明乐,联接理论的发展与现状[J]。《外语学刊》第2期,2004。
郭继懋、王红旗,粘合补语和组合补语表达差异的认知分析[J]。《世界汉语教学》第2期,2001。
郭锐,述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价语法研究[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1995。
何乐士,《史记》语法特点研究[A]。载程湘清主编,西汉汉语研究[C]。济南:山东教育出版社,1984。
胡建华,题元、论元和语法功能项—格标效应与语言差异[J]。《外语教学与研究》第3期,2007。
胡裕树、范晓,试论语法研究的三个平面[J]。《新疆师范大学学报》第2期,1985。
黄锦章,行为类可能式V-R谓语句的逻辑结构与表层句法现象[J]。《语言研究》第2期,1993。
黄正德,句法分析性和参数理论[P]。IACL大会论文,2004。
蒋绍愚,汉语动结式产生的时代[A]。《国学研究》第6辑,北京:北京大学出版社,1999。
黎锦熙,新著国语文法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1924/1992。
黎意,汉藏语述补结构研究[D]。北京:中央民族大学博士论文,2004。
李临定,动补格句式[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1980。
李临定,动词的宾语和结构的宾语[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,1984。
李平,《世说新语》和《百喻经》中的动补结构[A]。《语言学论丛》第14辑,北京:商务印书馆,1984。
李小荣,对动结式带宾语功能的考察[J]。《汉语学习》第5期,1994。
梁锦祥,说PUT道“放”—汉英动词词汇化对比一例[J]。《华南师范大学学报》第4期,2006。
梁银峰,汉语动补结构的产生与演变[M]。上海:学林出版社,2006。
林元基,《水浒传》述补结构研究[D]。上海:复旦大学博士论文,2007。
刘丹青,作为典型构式句的非典型“连”字句[J]。《语言教学与研究》第4期,2005。
刘丹青,“类型学导论—语言的共性和差异”导读[A]。L. P. Whaley(著),类型学导论—语言的共性和差异[M]。北京:世界图书出版公司,2009。
刘月华等,实用现代汉语语法(增订本)[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2001。
刘正光,语言非范畴化[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006。
刘振平,单音形容词作状语和补语的对比研究[D]。北京:北京语言大学博士论文,2007。
柳士镇,魏晋南北朝历史语法[M]。南京:南京大学,1992。
陆丙甫,定语的外延性、内涵性和称谓性及其顺序[A]。语法研究和探索[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1988。
陆谷孙(主编),英汉大词典[Z]。上海:上海译文出版社,1993。
陆俭明,“VA了”述补结构语义分析[J]。《汉语学习》第1期,1990。
陆俭明,《现代汉语配价语法研究》序[J]。《汉语学习》第4期,1995。
陆俭明,“VA了”述补结构语义分析补议[J]。《汉语学习》第1期,2001。
陆俭明,现代汉语语法研究教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
陆俭明,词语句法、语义的多功能性:对“构式语法”理论的解释[J]。《外国语》第2期,2004。
陆俭明,句法语义联接问题[J]。《外国语》第3期,2006。
陆俭明,构式语法理论的价值与局限[J]。《南京师范大学文学院学报》第1期,2008。
罗思明,当代词汇化研究综合考察[J]。《现代外语》第4期,2007。
吕叔湘,单音节形容词研究—《普通话三千常用词表》(初稿)里140个单音节形容词的分析[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1966。
吕叔湘主编,现代汉语八百词[Z]。北京:商务印书馆,1980。
吕叔湘,中国文法要略[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
吕叔湘,语文杂记[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,1984。
马建忠,马氏文通[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1988。
马庆株,自主动词和非自主动词[J]。《中国语言学报》第3期,1988。
马庆株、王红旗,关于若干语法理论问题的思考[A]。《南开语言学论丛》第3辑,天津:南开大学出版社,2004。
马希文,与动结式动词有关的句式[J]。《中国语文》第6期,1987。
马真、陆俭明,形容词作结果补语情况考察[J]。《汉语学习》第1、4、6期,1997。
梅德明,汉英口译实践[M]。北京:人民教育出版社,1998。
梅祖麟,从汉代的“动、杀”、“动、死”来看动补结构的发展[A]。《语言学论丛》第16辑,北京:商务印书馆,1991。
梅祖麟,梅祖麟语言学论文集[C]。北京:商务印书馆,2007。
孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,动词用法词典[Z]。上海:上海辞书出版社, 2005。
彭国珍,英汉结果补语结构中补语形容词的差异[J]。《语言教学与研究》第3期,2007。
任鹰,主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析[J]。《中国语文》第4期,2001。
邵敬敏,汉语语义语法论文集[C]。上海:上海教育出版社,2007。
沈家煊,“有界”和“无界”[J]。《中国语文》第5期,1995。
沈家煊,形容词句法功能的标记模式[J]。《中国语文》第4期,1997。
沈家煊,语法研究的分析和综合[J]。《外语教学与研究》第2期,1999。
沈家煊,复句三域“行、知、言”[J]。《中国语文》第3期,2003。
沈家煊,“分析”与“综合”[J]。《语言文字应用》第3期,2005。
沈家煊,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2006。
沈园,句法—语义界面研究[M]。上海:上海教育出版社,2007。
施春宏,汉语动结式的句法语义研究[M]。北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,2008。
施耐庵、罗贯中(著),沙博理(译),水浒传[M]。北京:外文出版社,2005。
石毓智,现代汉语语法系统的建立[M]。北京:北京语言大学出版社,2003。
石毓智,汉语研究的类型学视野[M]。南昌:江西教育出版社,2004。
束定芳,认知语义学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
宋绍年,汉语结果补语的起源再探索[A]。载《缀玉二集》,北京:北京大学出版社,1994。
宋文辉,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[D]。北京大学博士论文,2003。
宋文辉,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2007。
Sybesma, R. &沈阳,结果补语小句分析和小句的内部结构[J]。《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版)第4期,2006。
太田辰夫,中国语历史文法[M]。1957,蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京:北京大学出版社,1987。
太田辰夫,中国语历史文法(修订本)[M]。蒋绍愚、徐昌华译,北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
田朝霞,形义匹配种种[J]。《外语教学》第1期,2007。
王红旗,动结式述补结构配价研究[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价研究[C]。北京:北京大学出版社,1995。
王红旗,动结式述补结构的语义是什么[J],《汉语学习》第1期,1996。
王建华,美国总统就职演说[C]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1995。
王力,汉语史稿[M]。北京:中华书局,1943。
王力,汉语史稿(合订本)[M]。北京:中华书局,1958 / 2004。
王力,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1985。
王玲玲、何元建,汉语动结式[C]。杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002。
王维贤,句法分析的三个平面与深层结构[J]。《汉语学习》第4期,1991。
王文斌,转喻的认知构建与解读[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
吴福祥,关于动补结构“V死O”的来源[J]。《古汉语研究》第3期,2000。
谢都全、郭应可,汉语结果结构的小句分析评述及新模式[J]。《外国语》第4期,2008。
熊学亮,认知语用学概论[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
熊学亮、梁晓波,论典型致使结构英汉表达异同[J]。《外语教学与研究》第2期,2004。
熊仲儒,动结式的致事选择[J]。《安徽师范大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第4期,2004。
熊仲儒、刘丽萍,动结式的论元实现[J]。《现代外语》第2期,2006。
许余龙,对比语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
许余龙,篇章回指的功能语用探索[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
严辰松,构式语法论要[J]。《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期,2006。
延俊荣,动结式“V+RV”带宾语情况考察[J]。《汉语学习》第5期,2002。
杨建国,补语式发展试探[A]。载《语法论集》第3期,北京:中华书局,1959。
杨峥琳,现代汉语述结式的不对称研究[D]。北京:北京语言大学博士论文,2006。
袁野,动词意义、构式与体验式理解[J]。《外语教学》第3期,2007。
袁毓林,汉语动词的配价研究[M]。南昌:江西教育出版社,1998。
袁毓林,述结式的结构和意义的不平衡性—从表达功能和历史来源的角度来看[J]。《现代中国语研究》第1期,2000。
袁毓林,述结式配价的控制—还原分析[J]。《中国语文》第5期,2001。
余健萍,使成式的起源和发展[A]。载《语法论集》第2期,北京:中华书局,1957。
詹人凤,动结式短语的表述问题[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1989。
张国宪,延续性形容词的续段结构及其具体表现[J]。《中国语文》第6期,1999。
张国宪,现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M]。北京:商务印书馆,2006。
张培基,英译中国现代散文选[C]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
张谊生,现代汉语副词探索[M]。上海:学林出版社,2004。
赵长才,汉语述补结构的历史研究[D]。北京:中国社会科学院研究生院语言系博士学位论文,2000。
赵杨,汉语使动及其中介语表征[M]。北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
赵元任,汉语口语语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1979 / 2005。
志村良治,中国中世语法史研究[M]。1984,江蓝生、白维国译,北京:中华书局,1995。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,现代汉语词典(修订本)[Z]。北京:商务印书馆, 1997。
周迟明,汉语的使动性复式动词[J]。《山东大学学报》第1期,1957。
朱德熙,现代汉语形容词研究[J]。《语言研究》第1期,1956。
朱德熙,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
朱德熙,语法答问[M]。北京:商务印书馆,1985。
朱德熙,变换分析的平行性原则[J]。《中国语文》第2期,1986。
朱德熙,朱德熙文集(第1卷)[C]。北京:商务印书馆,1999。
祝敏彻,使成式的起源和发展[J]。《兰州大学学报》第2期,1963。
祝敏彻,汉语史论集[M]。北京:中华书局,2007。
Arnold, J., T. Wasow, A. Losongco & R. Ginstrom. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constitute ordering [J]. Language 76.1,2000, 28-55.
Baker, M. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Beck, S.& K. Johnson. Double objects again [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 2003, 97-123.
Boas, H. Resultative Constructions in Englsh and German [D]. PhD. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2000.
Boas, H. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003.
Bolinger, D. The Phrasal Verb in English [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Borer, H. Structuring Sense I: In Name Only [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005a.
Borer, H. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005b.
Briton, L. & E. C. Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Broccias, C.The need for the resultative network [J]. Berkeley Linguistics Society 26, 2001, 41-52.
Broccias, C. The English Change Network [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
Broccias, C. Towards a history of English resultative constructions: The case of adjective resultative constructions [J]. English and Linguistics 12.1, 2008, 27-54.
Burzio, L. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
Butt, M. & W. Geude. The Pojection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [C]. Stanford: CSLI, 1998.
Campbell, G. Compendium of the World’s Language (2nd) [M]. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Carrier, J. & J. Randall, The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultativs [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 1992, 173-234.
Chao, Yuanren, A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Chomsky, N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use [M]. New York:Praeger, 1986.
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.
Comrie, B. Aspect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Croft, W. Categories and Relations in Syntax: The Clause Level of Organization of Information [D]. Ph.D Dissertation, Stanford: Stanford University,1987.
Croft, W. Possible verbs and event structure [A]. In S. Tsohatzidis (ed.).Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge, 1990.
Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Croft, W. Case marking and semantics of mental verbs [A]. In J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Semantics and Syntax [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
Croft, W. The semantics of subjecthood [A]. In M. Yaguello (ed.). Subjecthood and Subjectivity [C]. Paris: Ophrys, 1994.
Croft, W. Event structure in argument linking [A]. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.).The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [C]. Stanford, California: Centre for the Study of Language and Information, 1998.
Croft, D. & A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2006.
Davidson,D. The logical form of action sentences [A]. In N. Resher (ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action [C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
Davis, A. R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Djiamouri, R. Markers of predication in Shang Bone inscription [A].In H.Chapell(ed.). Sintic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Dowty, D.Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English [P]. Studies in Linguistics, Austin: University of Texas, 2002.
Dowty, D.Word meaning and montague grammar [A]. In D. Dowty (ed.). The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ [C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
Dowty, D.Themantic proto-roles and argument selection [J]. Language 67, 1991, 547-619.
Ellis, J. Towards a General Comparative Linguistics [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. The Syntax of Aspect [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Ettlinger, M. The syntactic behavior of the resultative phrase: evidence for a constructional approach [J]. Language 11, 2006, 213-232.
Evans,V. & M. Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Fillmore, C. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [J]. BLS1, 1975, 123-131.
Fillmore, C. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphor [J]. BLS12, 1986, 95-107.
Fillmore, C. The mechanism of“construction grammar”[J]. BLS14, 1988, 35-55.
Fillmore, C. & P, Kay. Construction grammar [P]. Berkeley: University of California, 1993.
Fried, M. & ?. Jan-Ola. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Garcia, E. Discourse without syntax [A]. In T. Givón (ed.). Syntax and Semantics Vol.12 [C]. New York: Academic Press, Inc, 1979.
Geuder, W. Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Tübingen: Universit?t Tübingen, 2000.
Givón, T. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An anthroplist field trip [A]. In T. Givón (ed.) Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1971.
Givón, T. Syntax and Semantics 12 [C]. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1979.
Givón, T. Syntax:An Introduction (Vol.1 & 2) [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.
Goldberg, A. It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative [J]. BLS 17, 1991, 368-378.
Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Goldberg, A. The relationship between verbs and constructions [A]. In M. Verspoor, K. Lee & E. Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactic Construction and Construction of Meaning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.
Goldberg, A. Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle:Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Goldberg, A. Construction at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Goldberg, A. & R. Jackendoff. The English resultative as a family of construction [J]. Language 80, 2004, 532-569.
Green, G. Some observation on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs [A]. In P. M. Peranteu(ed.). Papers From The Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1972.
Green, G. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity [M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974.
Greenberg, J.Unversals of Language [C].Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1966.
Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure [M].Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990.
Grimshaw, J. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content [M]. New Brunswick: Ms Rutgers University Press, 1993.
Gu, Yang, The Syntax of Resultative and Causative Compounds in Chinese [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation , Ithaca: Cornell University, 1992.
Haiman, J. Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure [M].Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
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, 2003.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. Change-of-state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Halliday, M. A. K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English [J]. Journal of Linguistics 3, 1967, 37-38.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Intruction to Functional Grammar (2nd) [M]. London: EdwardArnold., 1994.
Higginbotham, J. Sense and Syntax [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Higginbotham, J. Accomplishments [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Hoekstra, T. Small clause results [J]. Lingua 74, 1988, 104-139.
Hoekstra, T. Aspect and theta theory [A]. In Roca (ed).Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
Iwata, S. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations [A]. In M. Fried (ed.). Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990.
Jackendoff, R. Findings of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Jespersen,O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Priniple [M]. London: Allen & Unwin, 1909-1949.
Kemmer, S. & A. Verhagen The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 5, 1995, 115-156.
Koopman, H. Preposition, postpositions, circumpositions and particles [A]. In H. Koopman (ed.). The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads: Collected Essays of Hilda Koopman [C]. London: Routledge, 2000.
Krifka, M. The origins of telicity [A]. In S. Rothstein (ed.). Events and Grammar [C]. Dordrecht: Luuwer Academic Publications, 1998.
Krzeszowski, T.P Tertium comparations [A].In J. Fisiak (ed.).Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems [C]. Berlin: Mouton, 1984.
Lakoff, G. Irregularity in Syntax [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Bloomington: University of Indiana, 1965.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Standard University Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: linguistic Description [M]. Stanford: Standard University Press, 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Langacker, R.W. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning [A]. In M. Fried (ed.). Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.
Leek, F. Rigid syntax and flexible meaning: The case of the English ditransitive [A]. In A. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structures, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.
Levin, B. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Levin, B. & R. Tenny. Lexical subordination[A].In B. Levin & R. Tenny (eds.). Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 24 [C]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Levin, B. All dative verbs are not created equal [P].http//: www.stanford.edu.2005.
Li, C. & S. Thompson, Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley, Los Angeles& London: University of California Press, 1981.
Li, Yafei. On V-V compound in Chinese [J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 82: 177-207, 1990.
Li, Yafei. Structural heads and aspectuality [J]. Language 69.3, 1993, 480-504.
Li, Yafei. The thematic hierarchy and causativity[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 1995, 255-282.
McCawley, J. D. Lexical insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure [A].In B. Darden , C-J. N. Barley & A. Davison (eds.). Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Packard,P. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Perlmutter, M. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothisis [A]. In A.C. Woodbury, F. Ackerman, C. Chicarelo, O. D.Gender, & J. J. Jaeger (eds.). Proceedings of the FourthAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: University of California, 1978.
Peyraube, A. On word order in archaic Chinese [J]. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 26, 1997, 13-20.
Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1989.
Putsejovsky, J. The syntax of event structure [J]. Cognition 41, 1991, 47-81.
Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995.
Quirk, R. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman Publishing Company, 1985.
Rappaport Hovav, R. & B. Levin. Building verb meaning [A]. In M. Utt & W. Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments [C]. Stanford: California University Press, 1998.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. An event structure account of English resultatives [J]. Language 77, 2001, 766-797.
Rappaport Hovav, M & B. Levin. Change-of-state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection [A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.). The Syntax of Aspect [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 274-286.
Rundell, M. Macmillan English Dictionary [Z]. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2002.
Saussure, D. F. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Paris: Payot Press, 1966.
Simpson, J. Resultatives [A]. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A.Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar [C]. Bloomington: Indiana University Club, 1983.
Smith, C. S. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd) [M].Dordrecht: The Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
Snyder, W. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word formation [J]. Language 77, 2001, 324-342.
Song, J. J. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2008.
Summers, D. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [Z].London: Longman Publishing Company, 1995.
Sybesma, R. Causative and Accomplishments: The Case of Chinese BA [D]. Ph.DDissertation, Leiedn: Leiden University, 1992.
Sybesma, R. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1997, 215-262.
Tai, James H-Y. Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese [J]. Language and Linguistics 4.2, 2003, 301-316.
Tai, James H-Y. Conceptual structure and conceptualization in Chinese [J]. Language and Linguistics 6.4, 2005, 539-574.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms [A]. In T. Shopen(ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Talmy, L. Towards a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Tenny, C. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness [D]. Ph.D.Dissertation, Cambridge: MIT, 1987.
Tenny, C. Aspectual Roles and The Syntax-Semantics Interface [M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
Tenny, C. & J. Putsejovsky. Events as Grammatical Objects [C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 2000.
Tsuzuki, M. Geruman-syogo-ni mirareru haseitekikkakoubun-ni kansuru ichkousatsu [A]. In N. Ono (ed.). Kekkoubunkenkyu-no shinshiten [C]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, 2007.
Tsuneko, N. Resultative phrases in Japanese as modifier [P]. http//: www. nict.go.jp/x/x161/en/member/bond/hpsg-2008/abs/nakazawa.pdf, 2008.
Ungerer, F. & J. Schmidt. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity [J]. Language 66: 221-60, 1990.
Van Valin, D. Jr. & R. Lapolla. Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Vendler, Z. Verbs and times [J]. The Philosophical Review 66, 1957, 143-160.
Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.
Visser, T. An Historical Syntax of the English Language [M]. Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1963.
Washio, R. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation [J].Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1997, 1-49.
Wechsler, S. An Analysis of English resultatives under the‘event-argument homomorphism’model of telicity [A]. In A. Woodbury & R. Lariviere (eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure [C]. Austin: University of Texas, 2001.
Wechsler, S. Resultatives under the‘event-argument homomorphism’model of telicity[A]. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.).The Syntax of Aspect [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Whaley, L. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language [M]. Beijing: The World Publisher, 2009.
Williams, A. Small clause in English [A]. In J. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol 4. [C]. Orlando: Academic Press, 1975
Williams, A. Word order in resultatives [A]. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics [C]. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 2008.