意义、词典与词典释义研究
|
摘要
本研究运用理论词典学的研究框架,结合语义学、语用学等相关研究成果,探讨意义的客观性,释义的本质以及不同类型的词典的释义理论等问题。本研究立足于四个方面问题的分析,即客观意义与词典体系的联系、知识义与语言义的相互关系、语言的抽象性同释义准确性的对立统一和翻译、译义、释义三者的区别和联系问题。
我们常把意义分为知识义和语言义,前者阐释某一学科体系内部的科学信息,后者是语言体系中的词汇、语法、修辞意义。当人们用词典对客观存在的意义进行描述时,对信息的取舍是个主动的过程。这个过程首先表现为划分多义词,不同民族对于同一概念体系进行不同的分合处理,造成了不同语言之中词义内涵的宽窄不一。它体现了词义划分的主观性。在切分好词义之后,就开始解释各义项,因语义是客观存在的,释义所揭示的亦主要是词语的客观意义。
本研究认为知识意义是客观的,语言意义之中的词汇、语法意义是客观的,修辞意义则带有主观性。知识词典所释之义体现出人们对客观事物本质的认识,当人们由于认识水平低下而无法正确把握客体本质时,释义的偏颇在所难免,这不属语言学的责任范围。语言学所要解决的是如何将全人类的知识用恰当的方式进行表达。而对于语言词典,编者需客观地将语言社区对词目的词汇、语法意义进行分析并记录,净化语言、筛选用法都违背了客观性原则,不应成为词典编者的责任;主观的意义多表现为语言意义之中的修辞意义,在处理这类意义时,编者需广泛了解语言社区的使用习惯,忠实记录其意义。
知识义是从百科知识的角度解释某一学科的知识,语言义则是语言体系内部的意义,体现为词的多义体系。语言义是个总称,它还包括语言意义和言语意义。词典释义是在语言体系内部进行的释义工作,主要解释的是语言意义,也不排除少量的言语意义。人们通常用定义描述知识义,用释义来概括语言义,释义和定义既有联系又有区别。定义需要把握对象的本质性特征,释义则多为理解和使用语言服务,重在呈现词目的语义和用法信息;定义所含信息是被释义项成立的充分必要条件,通常使用“属+种差”的方式。
为了能够表达一类事物,语言使用者首先要从这类事物中抽相出共同点,对这一共同点加以表述,成为对这一整类事物的表达形式,因此语言是抽象的。另一方面,准确性是一切释义的通用标准,其中涉及建构释义元语言、把握精确度等一系列问题。本研究认为语言抽象性和释义准确性是一对矛盾体,它们从不同的端口制约着词典释义,并使词典释义同时具备概括性和精确性特征。
本研究区分双语词典与双解词典,前者是基于多部词典蓝本,后者往往只源自一部蓝本,相当于一部源语词典的翻译本。因此双解词典无所谓译义或者释义,只存在翻译的问题;而对于双语词典,这个问题则复杂得多。一般的多蓝本双语词典在综合源语释义信息之后需要进行一番整合,这是一个翻译和释义相结合的过程。本研究认为双语词典的释义实质不是文本的翻译,也不同于单语词典的释义,它以目的语心理词库为参照,找到源语意义在目的语之中对应范围。
The present study, focusing on frame of theoretic lexicography, employs related research on semantics, pragmatics and the like. Purposes of the study cover a discussion on the objectivity of meaning, essence of definition and theories concerning various types of dictionaries. The study follows four aspects of questions, namely the entrance of objective meaning into the dictionary, relationship between encyclopedia knowledge and language knowledge, appositive unity concerning vagueness in language and accuracy in meaning, as well as the difference and relation among translation, meaning translation and definition.
We may look at meaning as a combination of encyclopedia meaning and linguistic meaning, the former is about scientific information concerning any specific principle, whilst the latter, the lexical, grammatical and rhetoric meaning within the linguistic system. The process of lexicographer’s description over objective meaning starts with sense partition. Various language communities may take different views in deciding how to articulate a concept, resulting in a cross-language conflict on word meaning. Thus sense partition is subjective rather than objective. Explaining the senses comes next to partition. As meaning is objective, definition is about the objective part of lexical meaning.
The present study holds that encyclopedia meaning is objective, amongst all parts of linguistic meaning, lexical and grammatical meaning are also objective whereas rhetoric meaning may be subjective. Therefore encyclopedic dictionary definition aims at reflecting people’s understanding to the essence of any subjects. It is understandable that human being’s limit in knowledge sometimes leads to inappropriate definition, but this is not to be covered by linguistic study. Linguistics is responsible for looking for the best ways of defining the present knowledge storage. As for language dictionary, lexicographers need to record and analyze the lexical and grammatical meaning of the head word in an honest way, without judging the appropriateness or screening any language units or ways of usage. Rhetoric meaning sometimes can be subjective, lexicographers need also to understand and record language users practice over it.
Encyclopedia meaning is to be explained by encyclopedic dictionary, while linguistic meaning exhibits itself to be the various senses under any head word within a linguistic system. Under the general term of linguistic meaning, there exist meaning of langue and meaning of parole. Dictionary definition focuses meaning of langue, and a small fraction of meaning of parole, if there are any. People define encyclopedia meaning with definition, but they describe linguistic meaning with explanation. Definition needs to exhibit the essence of a subject whist explanation serves more often for understanding or making use of language. The sufficient and necessary condition for any definiens to be true is what a definition needs to provide, a common practice in giving definition is to introduce the genus and differentia.
Steps people take deciding on expressing a group of similar subjects start with an observation on their common features, follow by articulation of the common features, end up with an accepted expression of the group. This also explains why language is abstract. It is the abstract of language that results in its vagueness. When a language is no longer vague, nor is it abstract, which defunctionize language as a way of expressing. To sum up, language has to be vague. One the other hand, precise is a criterion measuring definition quality. To define head word precisely using language of vagueness is to balance between the two. The present study holds that both vagueness and precision serve as restriction on dictionary definition.
The present study holds that bilingual dictionary and dictionary of two languages are not the same. Bilingual dictionary normally takes more than one blueprint, yet dictionary of two languages is no more than a translation of one dictionary of the source language. Thus dictionary of two languages involves no matters of definition while definition problems concerning bilingual dictionary are much more complicated. Normally a bilingual dictionary researches on some dictionaries of the original language before writing an integrated version of its own definition, the process involves translation and definition at the same time. The present study holds that bilingual dictionary definition is neither simply translation of texts from two languages or defining any meaning for a monolingual dictionary, it is to look for equivalent from the source language.
我们常把意义分为知识义和语言义,前者阐释某一学科体系内部的科学信息,后者是语言体系中的词汇、语法、修辞意义。当人们用词典对客观存在的意义进行描述时,对信息的取舍是个主动的过程。这个过程首先表现为划分多义词,不同民族对于同一概念体系进行不同的分合处理,造成了不同语言之中词义内涵的宽窄不一。它体现了词义划分的主观性。在切分好词义之后,就开始解释各义项,因语义是客观存在的,释义所揭示的亦主要是词语的客观意义。
本研究认为知识意义是客观的,语言意义之中的词汇、语法意义是客观的,修辞意义则带有主观性。知识词典所释之义体现出人们对客观事物本质的认识,当人们由于认识水平低下而无法正确把握客体本质时,释义的偏颇在所难免,这不属语言学的责任范围。语言学所要解决的是如何将全人类的知识用恰当的方式进行表达。而对于语言词典,编者需客观地将语言社区对词目的词汇、语法意义进行分析并记录,净化语言、筛选用法都违背了客观性原则,不应成为词典编者的责任;主观的意义多表现为语言意义之中的修辞意义,在处理这类意义时,编者需广泛了解语言社区的使用习惯,忠实记录其意义。
知识义是从百科知识的角度解释某一学科的知识,语言义则是语言体系内部的意义,体现为词的多义体系。语言义是个总称,它还包括语言意义和言语意义。词典释义是在语言体系内部进行的释义工作,主要解释的是语言意义,也不排除少量的言语意义。人们通常用定义描述知识义,用释义来概括语言义,释义和定义既有联系又有区别。定义需要把握对象的本质性特征,释义则多为理解和使用语言服务,重在呈现词目的语义和用法信息;定义所含信息是被释义项成立的充分必要条件,通常使用“属+种差”的方式。
为了能够表达一类事物,语言使用者首先要从这类事物中抽相出共同点,对这一共同点加以表述,成为对这一整类事物的表达形式,因此语言是抽象的。另一方面,准确性是一切释义的通用标准,其中涉及建构释义元语言、把握精确度等一系列问题。本研究认为语言抽象性和释义准确性是一对矛盾体,它们从不同的端口制约着词典释义,并使词典释义同时具备概括性和精确性特征。
本研究区分双语词典与双解词典,前者是基于多部词典蓝本,后者往往只源自一部蓝本,相当于一部源语词典的翻译本。因此双解词典无所谓译义或者释义,只存在翻译的问题;而对于双语词典,这个问题则复杂得多。一般的多蓝本双语词典在综合源语释义信息之后需要进行一番整合,这是一个翻译和释义相结合的过程。本研究认为双语词典的释义实质不是文本的翻译,也不同于单语词典的释义,它以目的语心理词库为参照,找到源语意义在目的语之中对应范围。
The present study, focusing on frame of theoretic lexicography, employs related research on semantics, pragmatics and the like. Purposes of the study cover a discussion on the objectivity of meaning, essence of definition and theories concerning various types of dictionaries. The study follows four aspects of questions, namely the entrance of objective meaning into the dictionary, relationship between encyclopedia knowledge and language knowledge, appositive unity concerning vagueness in language and accuracy in meaning, as well as the difference and relation among translation, meaning translation and definition.
We may look at meaning as a combination of encyclopedia meaning and linguistic meaning, the former is about scientific information concerning any specific principle, whilst the latter, the lexical, grammatical and rhetoric meaning within the linguistic system. The process of lexicographer’s description over objective meaning starts with sense partition. Various language communities may take different views in deciding how to articulate a concept, resulting in a cross-language conflict on word meaning. Thus sense partition is subjective rather than objective. Explaining the senses comes next to partition. As meaning is objective, definition is about the objective part of lexical meaning.
The present study holds that encyclopedia meaning is objective, amongst all parts of linguistic meaning, lexical and grammatical meaning are also objective whereas rhetoric meaning may be subjective. Therefore encyclopedic dictionary definition aims at reflecting people’s understanding to the essence of any subjects. It is understandable that human being’s limit in knowledge sometimes leads to inappropriate definition, but this is not to be covered by linguistic study. Linguistics is responsible for looking for the best ways of defining the present knowledge storage. As for language dictionary, lexicographers need to record and analyze the lexical and grammatical meaning of the head word in an honest way, without judging the appropriateness or screening any language units or ways of usage. Rhetoric meaning sometimes can be subjective, lexicographers need also to understand and record language users practice over it.
Encyclopedia meaning is to be explained by encyclopedic dictionary, while linguistic meaning exhibits itself to be the various senses under any head word within a linguistic system. Under the general term of linguistic meaning, there exist meaning of langue and meaning of parole. Dictionary definition focuses meaning of langue, and a small fraction of meaning of parole, if there are any. People define encyclopedia meaning with definition, but they describe linguistic meaning with explanation. Definition needs to exhibit the essence of a subject whist explanation serves more often for understanding or making use of language. The sufficient and necessary condition for any definiens to be true is what a definition needs to provide, a common practice in giving definition is to introduce the genus and differentia.
Steps people take deciding on expressing a group of similar subjects start with an observation on their common features, follow by articulation of the common features, end up with an accepted expression of the group. This also explains why language is abstract. It is the abstract of language that results in its vagueness. When a language is no longer vague, nor is it abstract, which defunctionize language as a way of expressing. To sum up, language has to be vague. One the other hand, precise is a criterion measuring definition quality. To define head word precisely using language of vagueness is to balance between the two. The present study holds that both vagueness and precision serve as restriction on dictionary definition.
The present study holds that bilingual dictionary and dictionary of two languages are not the same. Bilingual dictionary normally takes more than one blueprint, yet dictionary of two languages is no more than a translation of one dictionary of the source language. Thus dictionary of two languages involves no matters of definition while definition problems concerning bilingual dictionary are much more complicated. Normally a bilingual dictionary researches on some dictionaries of the original language before writing an integrated version of its own definition, the process involves translation and definition at the same time. The present study holds that bilingual dictionary definition is neither simply translation of texts from two languages or defining any meaning for a monolingual dictionary, it is to look for equivalent from the source language.
引文
Al-Kasimi, Ali. M. 1984.“The interlingual / translation dictionary”. In R. R. K. Hartmann(ed.). L EXeter p83 Proceedings. Tubingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Atkins, B. T. S. and K. Varantola,‘Monitoring Dictionary Use’, in International Journal of Lexicography 1997,10.1. 1–45.
Atkins, B. T. S., J. Kegl and B. Levin,‘Anatomy of a Verb Entry: From Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice’, in International Journal of Lexicography 1988, 1.2. 84–126.
Austin, J L. How to do things with words. Urmson J O& Sbisa M (eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1962.
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. London: Routhledge, 1992.
Barnbrook, Geoff. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002.
Bell R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. London: Longman Group UK Limited, 1991.
Berg, J. The relevant relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (16). 1991: 411 - 25.
Bierwish B. & Lang E. Dimensional Adjectives: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation [M]. Berlin: Springer, 1989.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Carston, R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature [A]. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
——Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. OUP, 1965.
Cruse, D. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
——Meaning in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Davis A R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Fodor, J. Semantics: Theory of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Brighton, Sussex: The Havester Press, 1982.
——The Modularity of Mind [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1983.
Fox, G.“A vocabulary for writing dictionaries”. In M.L. Tickoo (ed.). Learners’
Dictionaries, State of the Art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 1989.
Freg, G.“On sense and reference”In Geach P & Black M (eds.) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Glttlob Freg. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1892.
Garman, M. Psycholinguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.
Geeraerts, D.‘The Lexicographical Treatment of Prototypical Polysemy’, in Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge. 1990: 195–210.
——‘Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries’, in Cognitive Linguistics 1994: 4.3. 223–272.
Geeraerts, D.‘Adding Electronic Value: the Electronic Version of the Grote Van Dale’, in Heid, U., Evert, S., Lehmann, E. and Rohrer, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth EURALEX Congress. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. 2000: 75–84.
Giora, R. Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1997(27): 17 - 34.
Gold, D. L.“Lexicographical metalanguage”. Babel 1983.29/ 1.
Grice H P.“Meaning”. Philosophical Review 66, 377-388. 1957.
——Logic and Conversation [A]. In Cole, P. & J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3): Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975. 41 -581.
——Retrospective epilogue (strand six) [J]. 1987. Reprinted in A. Kasher. (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, 1998: 177 - 80.
Halliday, M.A.K.and Colin Yallop. Lexicology: A Short Introduction[M],北京:世界图书出版公司,2009.
Hanks, P. W.‘To what Extent does a Dictionary Definition Define?’in R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.), Dictionaries and their Users. Exeter: University of Exeter.1979: 32–38.
Harris, Roy & Christopher Hutton Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law [M]. London: Continuum, 2007.
Hartmann, R. R. K. The History of Lexicography [M].John Benjamins, 1986.
Hatim, B. & Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
——The Translator as Communicator [M]. London & New York: Routledge, 1997.
Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature [A]. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context[C].Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1984.11-42.
Hornby, A. S.“the bilingual dictionary-victim of its own tradition?”in R.R.K.Hartmann (ed.) The History of Lexicography [M], Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1986: 207.
Jansen, et. al.“Controlling LDOCE’s controlled vocabulary”. In Cowie (ed.). The Dictionary and the Language Learner: Papers from the Euralex Seminar at the University of Leeds. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.1987.
Jaworski, A. & N. Coupland, (eds.). The Discourse Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
Johnson, Samuel. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language; Addressed to the Right Honourable Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield. London: J. and P. Knapton [etc.]. (Edited by Jack Lynch). Reprinted in Fontenelle (2008).
——Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language. (Edited by Jack
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Joppen, S & Wunderlich D. Argument Linking in Basque [J]. Lingua, 1995(97): 123 - 169.
Katz, J. J. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper& Row, 1972.
Kittay, E. F. Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistics Structure [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Landau, S. I. Dictionaries, the Art and Craft of Lexicography [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
——The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd/外语教学与研究出版社, 1996/2001
Leech, G. Semantics—The Study of Meaning [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin1983.
Levinson, S. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Lindstromberg, S.“Preposition entries in U. K. monolingual learners’dictionaries: problems and possible solutions”. Applied Linguistics 2001: 22/ 1.
Lyons, J., Semantics I, II [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Manning, C. Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding [J]. Noridc Journal of Linguistics, 1998(21): 107 - 144.
Marmaridou, S. S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Martin, R M. Meaning: Overview of Philosophical Theories in Elsevier 2006: 584-589.
Meer, G. van der‘The Treatment of Figurative Meanings in the English Learner’s Dictionaries (OALD, LDOCE, CC and CIDE)’, in Gellerstam et al. 1996:423-430
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M].Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic [M], Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2002. Miller, G. A.“WordNet: An online lexical database”. International Journal of Lexicography 1009: 3/ 4.
Morris, C. W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [A]. In Neurath, O. et al (eds.).International Encyclopedia of Unified Science [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938. 77-138.
Nida, E. A. &C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1969.
Putnam, H. Reason, Truth, and History [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981.
——The Meaning of Meaning [A]. In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers,Ⅱ[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 215-271.
Quine, W. V. O. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1960.
Robinson, Richard. On Definition [M].Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1950.
Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton, (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [M]. Malden MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Searl, J.R. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Smith, N. & D. Wilson, Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics [J]. 2005(17):353-388.
——Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995/2001.
Stock, P. (1984).‘Polysemy’in Fontenelle (ed.). Practical Lexicography: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
——‘The Cultural Dimension in Defining’, in Tommola, H., Varantola, K., Salmi-Tolonen, T. and Schopp, J. (eds.) EURALEX’92 Proceedings. Tampere: University of Tampere. 1992:113–120.
——‘The Structure and Function of Definitions’, in Snell-Hornby (ed.). ZüriLEX’86 Proceedings. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.1988:81–90.
Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pragmatics—Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Trench, Richard Chenevix.‘On some deficiencies in our English Dictionaries’(1857), http://www.oed.com/archive/paper-deficiencies.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. (1990) (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge.
van Dijk. Discourse as Social Interaction [M]. London and Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 1997.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers)Ltd.;北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1999/2000.
Wierzbicka, Anna.‘“Protypes Save”: on the Uses and Abuses of the Notions of “Prototype”in Linguistics and Related Fields’, in Tsohatzidis 1990: 347–365.
——‘What are the Uses of Theoretical Lexicography?’in W. Frawley (ed.), Dictionaries: the Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. Cleveland, 1993:44–78.
——English Speech Act Verbs. Sydney: Academic Press. 1987.
——Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. New York: Karoma Publishers. Inc., 1985.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. Pragmatics and modularity [A]. In S. Davis (ed.). Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, 1991.
——On Grice’s theory of conversation [J]. 1981. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, vol. 4, 1998: 347 - 68. London: Routledge.
Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998(29): 57 - 74.
——New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2003(15):105-127.
——Relevance and understanding [A]. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjr, A. Pollitt, J. Williams (ed.). Language and Understanding [C]. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.
——Relevance, word meaning and communication: the past, present and future of lexical pragmatics [J].现代外语, 2004(1) .
——关联与交际[J].现代外语, 2003(2) .
Wunderlich D. Argument Extension by Lexical Adjunction [J]. Journal of Semantics, 1997(14): 95 - 142.
Zgusta, L. Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
陈维振.有关范畴本质的认识——从“客观主义”到“经验现实主义”[J].外语教学与研究, 2002(1): 8-14
陈一壮.包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法[J].哲学研究, 2004(8): 64-70.
杜福兴.关联性的方向性研究[J]. 2006(4):72-76.
——也谈关联理论[J].外语教学,2005(2) .
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, 2003(3): 31-43.
弗雷格.论涵义和指称.见:语言哲学名著选辑.北京:生活.读书.新知三联书店,1988.
高海洋.甘柏兹教授谈社会语言学[J] .语言教学与研究,2003(1):11-16.
高明乐.联接理论的发展与现状[J].外语学刊, 2004(2) : 61-66.
何兆熊.语用学文献选读[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
何兆熊等.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M] .上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
姜望琪.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究, 2001(4):26-31.
李开,《现代词典学教程》,南京大学出版社,1990.
李明,周敬华,《双语词典编纂》,上海外语教育出版社,2002.
廖巧云. C-R-A Model: A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication [D].上海外国语大学博士论文.2005a.
——合作·关联·顺应模式与交际成败[J].四川外语学院学报, 2005b, (2): 58-63.
——合作·关联·顺应模式再探[J].外语教学,2006a, (5):20-23.
——语用学理论整合研究的理据探讨[J].四川外语学院学报,2006b, (11).92-96.
刘华文.从名词的配价看语义平面在英汉词典中的展开.辞书研究2007(1): 86-93
陆国强.现代英语联想与搭配[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1985.
吕浩.《篆隶万象名义》研究[M],上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
罗思明. LDG联接理论评介[J].宁波大学学报(人文科学版), 2001(1):62-67.
马博森.《话语分析手册》述评[J].当代语言学,2004(4):361-364.
冒从虎等.欧洲哲学通史[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 1985.
冉永平.言语交际的顺应—关联性分析[J].外语学刊, 2004(2): 28-33.
——语用学的多学科视角——Cummings新著《语用学》评介[J].外语教学与研究,2006(7): 312-316.
沈家煊.不对称与标记论[M].江西:江西教育出版社, 1999.
索振羽.语用学探索[M] .北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
谭载喜.语篇与翻译:论三大关系[J].外语与外语教学, 2002(7).
汪耀楠,大型语文词典释义的特点和要求[J],辞书研究,1982(3).
王德春,陈晨.现代修辞学[M],上海外语教育出版社,2001.
王德春,陈端瑞.语体学[M],广西教育出版社,2000.
王德春,孙汝建,姚远.社会心理语言学[M],上海外语教育出版社,1995.
王德春.语言学概论[M],上海外语教育出版社,1997.
——多角度研究语言[M],清华大学出版社,2002.
——论词语的语体分化[J],修辞论丛,2001(7).
——现代语言学的突破口[J],平顶山师专学报(社会科学版),1998(3).
——语言学分科和多角度研究语言[J],外国语,1996(5).
——语言学通论[M],江苏教育出版社,1990.
王馥芳.当代语言学与词典学创新[M],上海:辞书出版社,2004.
王扬,徐学平.从认知语言学角度看词典.辞书研究2006年3月.40-45
王寅. Lakoff & Johnson笔下的认知语言学[ J].外国语, 2001(4): 15-21.
——认知语言学的哲学基础:体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究, 2002 (2): 82-89.
魏在江.关联与预设[J].外语与外语教学,2006(8):1-5.
吴彤.复杂网络研究及其意义[J].哲学研究, 2004(8): 58-63.
徐盛桓.关系与语句解读研究:语用推理形式化的初步探索[J].现代外语, 2003(3): 111-119.
徐盛桓.会话含意理论的新发展[J].现代外语, 1993a, (2): 7-15.
——新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语, 1993b, (1): 7-14.
[汉]许慎.说文解字.中华书局:1963.
杨平.关联—顺应模式[J].外国语, 2001 (6): 21-28.
张建理.标记性和反义词[J].外国语, 1999, (3), 29-34.
——英语反义词的偏袒和公允现象[J].外国语, 1995, (6), 51-53.
张联荣.词典释义中的词义和语素义.辞书研究2001年第2期. 33-41.
章宜华.语义学与词典释义[M],上海辞书出版社,2002.
——西方词典释义类型和释义结构研究,辞书研究,2001(1).
赵世开.汉英对比语法论集[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
赵彦春.关联理论对翻译的解释力[A] .何自然,冉永平主编.语用与认知——关联理论研究[C] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001: 418 - 448.
——认知词典学探索[M],上海外语教育出版社,2003.
【捷】兹古斯塔.词典学概论[M],林书武等译,商务印书馆,1983.
American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007.
Collins Cobuild Student’s Dictionary London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1995.
Crowther, Jonathan.Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Hornby, A. S.Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1st ed 1948; 2nd ed l963; 3rd ed l974; (A. P. Cowie) 4th ed 1989; (J. Crowther) 5th ed 1995. Publishers, 2nd ed.1995.
Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language London: Times Books, 1983.
Kay, M.W. Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co. Publishers, 1976.
Kipfer, Barbara Ann and Robert L. Chapman Roget’s International Thesaurus 6th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
Laird, Charlton Webster’s New World Thesaurus. New York: Warner Books, 1974.
McArthur, Tom. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Editor: Essex: Longman Group Ltd., 1981. Revised and Bilingual Editions, 1992.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary Merriam Webster Inc, Springfield MA, USA, 2003.
Ormal-Grenon, Jean-Benoit and Nicholas Rollin. Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2007.
Procter, Paul. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Roget’s II: the New Thesaurus. by the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
Rundell, Michael. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Sinclair, J. Collins Cobuild Essential English Dictionary. 1988. (Editor in Chief). London and Glasgow: Collins ELT Ltd. ed 1978; 2nd ed 1987; 3rd ed 1995.
——Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary London: HarperCollins, 2006.
——Collins Cobuild English Dictionary London: HarperCollins, 1st ed 1987.
Soanes, Catherine and Angus Stevenson. Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
——Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Stein, Jess and Stuart Berg Flexner. The Random House Thesaurus. New York: Random House, 1984.
Summers, Della. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman, 2003.
——Longman Language Activator. Essex: Longman Group UK Ltd. 1990.
——Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Harlow: Longman, 2003.
顾宝和主编.英汉分类词典.南京:译林出版社, 1993, 1995重印.
胡文仲主编.英美文化辞典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
栗劲,李放主编.中华实用法学大辞典.长春:吉林大学出版社,1988.
林杏光,菲白编.简明汉语义类词典.北京:商务印书馆, 1987.
陆谷孙主编.英汉大词典.上海译文出版社:1989(上卷),1991(下卷),1993(缩印本).
商务印书馆辞书研究中心修订.新华词典.北京:商务印书馆, 2001, 2003重印.
吴景荣主编,北京外国语学院英语系《汉英词典》编写组编.汉英词典.北京:商务印书馆, 1978, 1999重印.
薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典.北京:商务印书馆,1978.
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) 385+ million words (US, 1990-2008)
British National Corpus 100 million words (UK, 1980s-1993)
TIME Corpus 100 million words (US, 1923-present)
BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus 100 million British English 1980s-1993
BYU-OED: The Oxford English Dictionary 37 million words in the Oxford EnglishDictionary
Chinese Internet Corpus, 280 million words (tokens). This corpus has been compiled automatically from the Internet in February 2005 along with other Internet corpora (for English, German and Russian).
Guo Jin's Chinese PH corpus, which is based on XINHUA news from 1990. Segmentation done by Chris Brew and Julia Hockenmaier.
The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese, created by Richard Xiao and Tony McEnery 现代汉语语料库.北京大学现代汉语语言学研究中心.
Atkins, B. T. S. and K. Varantola,‘Monitoring Dictionary Use’, in International Journal of Lexicography 1997,10.1. 1–45.
Atkins, B. T. S., J. Kegl and B. Levin,‘Anatomy of a Verb Entry: From Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice’, in International Journal of Lexicography 1988, 1.2. 84–126.
Austin, J L. How to do things with words. Urmson J O& Sbisa M (eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1962.
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. London: Routhledge, 1992.
Barnbrook, Geoff. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002.
Bell R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. London: Longman Group UK Limited, 1991.
Berg, J. The relevant relevance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (16). 1991: 411 - 25.
Bierwish B. & Lang E. Dimensional Adjectives: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation [M]. Berlin: Springer, 1989.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Carston, R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature [A]. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
——Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. OUP, 1965.
Cruse, D. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
——Meaning in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Davis A R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Fodor, J. Semantics: Theory of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Brighton, Sussex: The Havester Press, 1982.
——The Modularity of Mind [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1983.
Fox, G.“A vocabulary for writing dictionaries”. In M.L. Tickoo (ed.). Learners’
Dictionaries, State of the Art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 1989.
Freg, G.“On sense and reference”In Geach P & Black M (eds.) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Glttlob Freg. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1892.
Garman, M. Psycholinguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.
Geeraerts, D.‘The Lexicographical Treatment of Prototypical Polysemy’, in Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge. 1990: 195–210.
——‘Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries’, in Cognitive Linguistics 1994: 4.3. 223–272.
Geeraerts, D.‘Adding Electronic Value: the Electronic Version of the Grote Van Dale’, in Heid, U., Evert, S., Lehmann, E. and Rohrer, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth EURALEX Congress. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. 2000: 75–84.
Giora, R. Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1997(27): 17 - 34.
Gold, D. L.“Lexicographical metalanguage”. Babel 1983.29/ 1.
Grice H P.“Meaning”. Philosophical Review 66, 377-388. 1957.
——Logic and Conversation [A]. In Cole, P. & J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3): Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975. 41 -581.
——Retrospective epilogue (strand six) [J]. 1987. Reprinted in A. Kasher. (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, vol. 4. London: Routledge, 1998: 177 - 80.
Halliday, M.A.K.and Colin Yallop. Lexicology: A Short Introduction[M],北京:世界图书出版公司,2009.
Hanks, P. W.‘To what Extent does a Dictionary Definition Define?’in R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.), Dictionaries and their Users. Exeter: University of Exeter.1979: 32–38.
Harris, Roy & Christopher Hutton Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law [M]. London: Continuum, 2007.
Hartmann, R. R. K. The History of Lexicography [M].John Benjamins, 1986.
Hatim, B. & Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
——The Translator as Communicator [M]. London & New York: Routledge, 1997.
Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature [A]. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context[C].Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1984.11-42.
Hornby, A. S.“the bilingual dictionary-victim of its own tradition?”in R.R.K.Hartmann (ed.) The History of Lexicography [M], Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1986: 207.
Jansen, et. al.“Controlling LDOCE’s controlled vocabulary”. In Cowie (ed.). The Dictionary and the Language Learner: Papers from the Euralex Seminar at the University of Leeds. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.1987.
Jaworski, A. & N. Coupland, (eds.). The Discourse Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
Johnson, Samuel. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language; Addressed to the Right Honourable Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield. London: J. and P. Knapton [etc.]. (Edited by Jack Lynch). Reprinted in Fontenelle (2008).
——Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language. (Edited by Jack
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Joppen, S & Wunderlich D. Argument Linking in Basque [J]. Lingua, 1995(97): 123 - 169.
Katz, J. J. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper& Row, 1972.
Kittay, E. F. Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistics Structure [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Landau, S. I. Dictionaries, the Art and Craft of Lexicography [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
——The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd/外语教学与研究出版社, 1996/2001
Leech, G. Semantics—The Study of Meaning [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin1983.
Levinson, S. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Lindstromberg, S.“Preposition entries in U. K. monolingual learners’dictionaries: problems and possible solutions”. Applied Linguistics 2001: 22/ 1.
Lyons, J., Semantics I, II [M], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Manning, C. Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding [J]. Noridc Journal of Linguistics, 1998(21): 107 - 144.
Marmaridou, S. S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Martin, R M. Meaning: Overview of Philosophical Theories in Elsevier 2006: 584-589.
Meer, G. van der‘The Treatment of Figurative Meanings in the English Learner’s Dictionaries (OALD, LDOCE, CC and CIDE)’, in Gellerstam et al. 1996:423-430
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M].Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic [M], Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2002. Miller, G. A.“WordNet: An online lexical database”. International Journal of Lexicography 1009: 3/ 4.
Morris, C. W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [A]. In Neurath, O. et al (eds.).International Encyclopedia of Unified Science [C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938. 77-138.
Nida, E. A. &C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1969.
Putnam, H. Reason, Truth, and History [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981.
——The Meaning of Meaning [A]. In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers,Ⅱ[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 215-271.
Quine, W. V. O. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1960.
Robinson, Richard. On Definition [M].Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1950.
Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton, (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [M]. Malden MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Searl, J.R. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Smith, N. & D. Wilson, Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution [M]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics [J]. 2005(17):353-388.
——Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995/2001.
Stock, P. (1984).‘Polysemy’in Fontenelle (ed.). Practical Lexicography: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
——‘The Cultural Dimension in Defining’, in Tommola, H., Varantola, K., Salmi-Tolonen, T. and Schopp, J. (eds.) EURALEX’92 Proceedings. Tampere: University of Tampere. 1992:113–120.
——‘The Structure and Function of Definitions’, in Snell-Hornby (ed.). ZüriLEX’86 Proceedings. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.1988:81–90.
Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pragmatics—Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Trench, Richard Chenevix.‘On some deficiencies in our English Dictionaries’(1857), http://www.oed.com/archive/paper-deficiencies.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. (1990) (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge.
van Dijk. Discourse as Social Interaction [M]. London and Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 1997.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers)Ltd.;北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1999/2000.
Wierzbicka, Anna.‘“Protypes Save”: on the Uses and Abuses of the Notions of “Prototype”in Linguistics and Related Fields’, in Tsohatzidis 1990: 347–365.
——‘What are the Uses of Theoretical Lexicography?’in W. Frawley (ed.), Dictionaries: the Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. Cleveland, 1993:44–78.
——English Speech Act Verbs. Sydney: Academic Press. 1987.
——Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. New York: Karoma Publishers. Inc., 1985.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. Pragmatics and modularity [A]. In S. Davis (ed.). Pragmatics: A Reader [C]. Oxford: OUP, 1991.
——On Grice’s theory of conversation [J]. 1981. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, vol. 4, 1998: 347 - 68. London: Routledge.
Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998(29): 57 - 74.
——New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2003(15):105-127.
——Relevance and understanding [A]. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjr, A. Pollitt, J. Williams (ed.). Language and Understanding [C]. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.
——Relevance, word meaning and communication: the past, present and future of lexical pragmatics [J].现代外语, 2004(1) .
——关联与交际[J].现代外语, 2003(2) .
Wunderlich D. Argument Extension by Lexical Adjunction [J]. Journal of Semantics, 1997(14): 95 - 142.
Zgusta, L. Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
陈维振.有关范畴本质的认识——从“客观主义”到“经验现实主义”[J].外语教学与研究, 2002(1): 8-14
陈一壮.包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法[J].哲学研究, 2004(8): 64-70.
杜福兴.关联性的方向性研究[J]. 2006(4):72-76.
——也谈关联理论[J].外语教学,2005(2) .
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, 2003(3): 31-43.
弗雷格.论涵义和指称.见:语言哲学名著选辑.北京:生活.读书.新知三联书店,1988.
高海洋.甘柏兹教授谈社会语言学[J] .语言教学与研究,2003(1):11-16.
高明乐.联接理论的发展与现状[J].外语学刊, 2004(2) : 61-66.
何兆熊.语用学文献选读[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
何兆熊等.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M] .上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
姜望琪.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究, 2001(4):26-31.
李开,《现代词典学教程》,南京大学出版社,1990.
李明,周敬华,《双语词典编纂》,上海外语教育出版社,2002.
廖巧云. C-R-A Model: A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication [D].上海外国语大学博士论文.2005a.
——合作·关联·顺应模式与交际成败[J].四川外语学院学报, 2005b, (2): 58-63.
——合作·关联·顺应模式再探[J].外语教学,2006a, (5):20-23.
——语用学理论整合研究的理据探讨[J].四川外语学院学报,2006b, (11).92-96.
刘华文.从名词的配价看语义平面在英汉词典中的展开.辞书研究2007(1): 86-93
陆国强.现代英语联想与搭配[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1985.
吕浩.《篆隶万象名义》研究[M],上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
罗思明. LDG联接理论评介[J].宁波大学学报(人文科学版), 2001(1):62-67.
马博森.《话语分析手册》述评[J].当代语言学,2004(4):361-364.
冒从虎等.欧洲哲学通史[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 1985.
冉永平.言语交际的顺应—关联性分析[J].外语学刊, 2004(2): 28-33.
——语用学的多学科视角——Cummings新著《语用学》评介[J].外语教学与研究,2006(7): 312-316.
沈家煊.不对称与标记论[M].江西:江西教育出版社, 1999.
索振羽.语用学探索[M] .北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
谭载喜.语篇与翻译:论三大关系[J].外语与外语教学, 2002(7).
汪耀楠,大型语文词典释义的特点和要求[J],辞书研究,1982(3).
王德春,陈晨.现代修辞学[M],上海外语教育出版社,2001.
王德春,陈端瑞.语体学[M],广西教育出版社,2000.
王德春,孙汝建,姚远.社会心理语言学[M],上海外语教育出版社,1995.
王德春.语言学概论[M],上海外语教育出版社,1997.
——多角度研究语言[M],清华大学出版社,2002.
——论词语的语体分化[J],修辞论丛,2001(7).
——现代语言学的突破口[J],平顶山师专学报(社会科学版),1998(3).
——语言学分科和多角度研究语言[J],外国语,1996(5).
——语言学通论[M],江苏教育出版社,1990.
王馥芳.当代语言学与词典学创新[M],上海:辞书出版社,2004.
王扬,徐学平.从认知语言学角度看词典.辞书研究2006年3月.40-45
王寅. Lakoff & Johnson笔下的认知语言学[ J].外国语, 2001(4): 15-21.
——认知语言学的哲学基础:体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究, 2002 (2): 82-89.
魏在江.关联与预设[J].外语与外语教学,2006(8):1-5.
吴彤.复杂网络研究及其意义[J].哲学研究, 2004(8): 58-63.
徐盛桓.关系与语句解读研究:语用推理形式化的初步探索[J].现代外语, 2003(3): 111-119.
徐盛桓.会话含意理论的新发展[J].现代外语, 1993a, (2): 7-15.
——新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语, 1993b, (1): 7-14.
[汉]许慎.说文解字.中华书局:1963.
杨平.关联—顺应模式[J].外国语, 2001 (6): 21-28.
张建理.标记性和反义词[J].外国语, 1999, (3), 29-34.
——英语反义词的偏袒和公允现象[J].外国语, 1995, (6), 51-53.
张联荣.词典释义中的词义和语素义.辞书研究2001年第2期. 33-41.
章宜华.语义学与词典释义[M],上海辞书出版社,2002.
——西方词典释义类型和释义结构研究,辞书研究,2001(1).
赵世开.汉英对比语法论集[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
赵彦春.关联理论对翻译的解释力[A] .何自然,冉永平主编.语用与认知——关联理论研究[C] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001: 418 - 448.
——认知词典学探索[M],上海外语教育出版社,2003.
【捷】兹古斯塔.词典学概论[M],林书武等译,商务印书馆,1983.
American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007.
Collins Cobuild Student’s Dictionary London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1995.
Crowther, Jonathan.Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Hornby, A. S.Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1st ed 1948; 2nd ed l963; 3rd ed l974; (A. P. Cowie) 4th ed 1989; (J. Crowther) 5th ed 1995. Publishers, 2nd ed.1995.
Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language London: Times Books, 1983.
Kay, M.W. Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co. Publishers, 1976.
Kipfer, Barbara Ann and Robert L. Chapman Roget’s International Thesaurus 6th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
Laird, Charlton Webster’s New World Thesaurus. New York: Warner Books, 1974.
McArthur, Tom. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Editor: Essex: Longman Group Ltd., 1981. Revised and Bilingual Editions, 1992.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary Merriam Webster Inc, Springfield MA, USA, 2003.
Ormal-Grenon, Jean-Benoit and Nicholas Rollin. Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2007.
Procter, Paul. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Roget’s II: the New Thesaurus. by the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
Rundell, Michael. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Sinclair, J. Collins Cobuild Essential English Dictionary. 1988. (Editor in Chief). London and Glasgow: Collins ELT Ltd. ed 1978; 2nd ed 1987; 3rd ed 1995.
——Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary London: HarperCollins, 2006.
——Collins Cobuild English Dictionary London: HarperCollins, 1st ed 1987.
Soanes, Catherine and Angus Stevenson. Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
——Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Stein, Jess and Stuart Berg Flexner. The Random House Thesaurus. New York: Random House, 1984.
Summers, Della. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman, 2003.
——Longman Language Activator. Essex: Longman Group UK Ltd. 1990.
——Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Harlow: Longman, 2003.
顾宝和主编.英汉分类词典.南京:译林出版社, 1993, 1995重印.
胡文仲主编.英美文化辞典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
栗劲,李放主编.中华实用法学大辞典.长春:吉林大学出版社,1988.
林杏光,菲白编.简明汉语义类词典.北京:商务印书馆, 1987.
陆谷孙主编.英汉大词典.上海译文出版社:1989(上卷),1991(下卷),1993(缩印本).
商务印书馆辞书研究中心修订.新华词典.北京:商务印书馆, 2001, 2003重印.
吴景荣主编,北京外国语学院英语系《汉英词典》编写组编.汉英词典.北京:商务印书馆, 1978, 1999重印.
薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典.北京:商务印书馆,1978.
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) 385+ million words (US, 1990-2008)
British National Corpus 100 million words (UK, 1980s-1993)
TIME Corpus 100 million words (US, 1923-present)
BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus 100 million British English 1980s-1993
BYU-OED: The Oxford English Dictionary 37 million words in the Oxford EnglishDictionary
Chinese Internet Corpus, 280 million words (tokens). This corpus has been compiled automatically from the Internet in February 2005 along with other Internet corpora (for English, German and Russian).
Guo Jin's Chinese PH corpus, which is based on XINHUA news from 1990. Segmentation done by Chris Brew and Julia Hockenmaier.
The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese, created by Richard Xiao and Tony McEnery 现代汉语语料库.北京大学现代汉语语言学研究中心.