中动结构的认知阐释
|
摘要
本论文对于西日耳曼语和汉语中的中动结构进行了全面的描述。并从认知的角度对中动结构的形成、构句制约及其语义、句法特征进行了统一的阐释。
本论文主要做了以下四个方面的工作。
首先，本文确立了汉语非施事主语“起来”结构的中动地位，并对其语义、句法特征进行了描述和分析。
在过去的25年中，中动结构一直是国外语言学界研究的一个热点问题，其中尤以对欧洲语言的研究最为深入，研究表明中动语义具有跨语言普遍性。相比之下，汉语中动研究却相对滞后。现有的研究主要是在生成语法框架内进行的。通过用广为接受的中动语义、句法标准来检验汉语非施事主语起来句[NP V起来Adj]，我们发现这一结构体现了所有的中动语义，具有跟西日耳曼语中动结构[NP V Adv]相同的语义特征和相似的句法表征。据此我们确立了其中动地位，这一结构跟西日耳曼语中动结构同属阿克马和舒莱默所归纳的类型—中动结构。相对于西日耳曼语的中动结构，汉语中动结构能产性更高，事件的各种被动参与者甚至场景等都可以成为汉语中动结构的主语。
其次本文证明了目前流行的对中动结构的分析，如句法说和词汇说，都存在较大问题，因而是不可行的。
通过对于典型及非典型中动结构的分析，我们发现目前流行的对于中动结构的解释大都是建构于对中动结构的不全面把握之上，没有深入分析中动结构的认知动因以及中动语义对于中动结构的决定作用，因而无法解释中动结构所体现出来的种种语义及句法特征，更无法解释这些特征的根源及其相互关系。尤其对于生成语法下的移位说而言，它很难解释为什么有的动词可以，而另一些动词却不可以构成中动结构，也不能很好解释中动构句中的各种制约。许多合法的中动结构无法以此种移位方式生成，大量语料无法得到合理解释。该理论还面临许多其它无法摆脱的困境。对于中动结构的动因及本质的不准确把握还导致必须提出很多条件来规范中动结构的三个可见成分甚至另一个不可
见成分，而这些条件又往往顾此失彼以、相互重叠。同时忽略语义和语用因素也使得一
些学者把在某一语境下构成不合法中动结构的动词完全排除在中动构句之外。再者，各
种不同的句式往往被赋予不同的生成机制，其间的内在联系得不到很好的解释，并使得
语法机制非常的复杂。
第三，本文将认知语法理论运用于中动研究，对中动结构的方方面面进行了统一的
解释。
在认知语法框架内，中动结构的各个方面都可以得到有机统一的解释。我们认为中
动结构的认知动因是弱化事件主动参与者(即施事)的作用，而凸显被动参与者对于事
件的发生所发挥的积极作用。因此该被动参与者处于认知突显地位，该事件基体的中动
侧面因而选择此被动参与者为子句射体，即主语，并且选择主动态谓语形式，而事件的
主动参与者不被编码进此侧面而仅存在于基体中，因此，它虽没有句法地位我们却能感
觉到中动结构蕴含一个施事。这样，中动结构不允许像被动结构中“被……”这样的短
语出现，以及中动结构中的副词或者形容词不能具有意愿性这两个问题都可以得到合理
解释。因为这样一来，又会突显施事的作用，这跟中动结构的意图是不相符的。从另一
方面来看，一个被动参与者要在一个事件中凸显出来，并被选择为一个主动态句子的射
体，它就必须是能对事件的发生发挥至关重要的甚至是决定性的作用，所以中动构句必
须满足责任条件，即该被动参与者在说话人看来山于某种内在特征而使得事件可以以某
种方式发生或使得事件具有某种特性。
另一方面，中动语义决定了中动结构表述的是一种恒时性特征，不以时间为转移。
因此中动结构虽然建构于事件动词之上，却不描述具体事件，而是概括虚拟事件所体现
出来的特征。而虚拟事件跟具体时间无关，故而中动结构选择(一般)现在时。由于兰
盖克所说的认知局限及事件持续性两方面的问题，现在时不能表述现在正在发生的动作，
而是用来表述类属性，普遍真理，习惯等。这样，中动结构具有非事件性以及具有类属
性特征也就不足为奇，这一者是紧密相关的。同时，主动参与者没有进入侧面，主语山
不具有控制力的被动参与者充当，以及结构中的副词这三方面的因素都大大弱化了谓语
的事件性，动词的及物性降低，事件被转化成关系或状态。可以说中动构句是一种把事
件转化为关系或状态的过程，中动结构对于动词的选择限制也就顺理成章.
本论文认为要制约中动构句的合法性，只需要两个条件，一个是体式条件，它提供
中动构句的可能性，另一个是责任条件，它提供中动构句的必要性，它们共同作用.以
往文献中提出的各种条件基本上都可以置于这两个条件的解释之下。理论上事件过程的
所有被动参与者甚至场景只要满足这两个条件就可以构成合法的中动句，然而中动句的
可接受性还要受到语义和语用因素的约束，这样构成的句子可能因为语义荒诞或语用怪
异而不被接受，但并非是它们结构上不合法。在某一语境中不被接受的句子一旦置于合
适的语境之中，其可接受性便不成问题。本文中的一些语料充分说明了这一点。英语中
动构句能产性较低，在德语、荷兰语和汉语中完全可以接受的中?
This dissertation makes a relatively comprehensive description of the middle constructions in three West-Germanic languages and Chinese, and on the basis of that provides a unified cognitive account of the middle formation, the restrictions middle formation is subject to, and the syntactic and semantic features middles display.The work I did in this thesis is made up of four parts.First, the status of Chinese non-agent subject qilai construction as middle construction Chinese is established.The middle construction has been a hot topic abroad during the past quarter of a century and is studied extensively in a number of European languages. It is claimed that middle semantics is universal. In contrast, the study has just begun in Chinese. The checking of the data of the Chinese qilai constructions with a non-agent subject plus verb in simple active morphology and an adjective against the unanimously agreed criteria for middles in West Germanic languages, English in particular, shows that Chinese qilai constructions realize all facets of middle semantics and exhibit the same semantic properties and similar syntactic representations of the middles in West Germanic languages. The middle status of such qilai constructions is established, which belongs to Type 1 middle construction like those in West Germanic languages. Compared with the middles in West Germanic languages, the middle construction is far more productive in Chinese. Various passive participants of event and even settings can be middle
subject.Second, the implausibility of the prevailing accounts of middles in the generative framework is illustrated.Through a detailed analysis of both typical and atypical middles, it is found that the now prevailing accounts of middles were mostly constructed on the inadequate understanding of middles, therefore are untenable. They did not probe into the cognitive motivation behind middles and did not realize the decisive role of middle semantics on the syntactic structure, but merely focused on the superficial phenomena such as syntactic representations. Consequently, they could not reasonably explain why middles display such unique syntactic and semantic features, let alone the origins of such features and their correlations. The movement approach in the generative syntax framework in particular, could not explain why some verbs are whereas others are not eligible for middle formation. Neither could it account for the restrictions on middle formation. A lot of actually acceptable middles could not be formed in this manner and a lot of data were left unaccounted for. This approach is also in face of lots of other dilemmas. The inadequate understanding of the nature and motivation of middles also led linguists to put various conditions on middle formation to regulate the three visible elements and even the invisible one in middles, which actually overlap to a great extent and often cover only a part of the data. Also the neglecting of semantic and pragmatic factors led them to completely exclude verbs which form unacceptable middles in a certain context. Besides, the obviously closely related constructions were thought to be formed in different manners. Their correlations could not be well explained and the syntactic mechanism became even more complicated.Third, and most important of all, middles were analyzed from cognitive approach and all facets of middles were given a unified account.
We argue the motivation of middle construction is to deemphasize the role of the active participant and highlight an active role a passive participant can play in the outcome of virtual events. Therefore, this passive participant is perceptually prominent. It is then selected as the clausal trajector in the middle profile of the event base and at the same time a predicate in active morphology is selected because an active angle can only be construed in active structure. The active participant is not profiled and left unspecified; however, it exists in the base. That is why middles imply an agent though it is syntactically inert. Thus, the p
本论文主要做了以下四个方面的工作。
首先，本文确立了汉语非施事主语“起来”结构的中动地位，并对其语义、句法特征进行了描述和分析。
在过去的25年中，中动结构一直是国外语言学界研究的一个热点问题，其中尤以对欧洲语言的研究最为深入，研究表明中动语义具有跨语言普遍性。相比之下，汉语中动研究却相对滞后。现有的研究主要是在生成语法框架内进行的。通过用广为接受的中动语义、句法标准来检验汉语非施事主语起来句[NP V起来Adj]，我们发现这一结构体现了所有的中动语义，具有跟西日耳曼语中动结构[NP V Adv]相同的语义特征和相似的句法表征。据此我们确立了其中动地位，这一结构跟西日耳曼语中动结构同属阿克马和舒莱默所归纳的类型—中动结构。相对于西日耳曼语的中动结构，汉语中动结构能产性更高，事件的各种被动参与者甚至场景等都可以成为汉语中动结构的主语。
其次本文证明了目前流行的对中动结构的分析，如句法说和词汇说，都存在较大问题，因而是不可行的。
通过对于典型及非典型中动结构的分析，我们发现目前流行的对于中动结构的解释大都是建构于对中动结构的不全面把握之上，没有深入分析中动结构的认知动因以及中动语义对于中动结构的决定作用，因而无法解释中动结构所体现出来的种种语义及句法特征，更无法解释这些特征的根源及其相互关系。尤其对于生成语法下的移位说而言，它很难解释为什么有的动词可以，而另一些动词却不可以构成中动结构，也不能很好解释中动构句中的各种制约。许多合法的中动结构无法以此种移位方式生成，大量语料无法得到合理解释。该理论还面临许多其它无法摆脱的困境。对于中动结构的动因及本质的不准确把握还导致必须提出很多条件来规范中动结构的三个可见成分甚至另一个不可
见成分，而这些条件又往往顾此失彼以、相互重叠。同时忽略语义和语用因素也使得一
些学者把在某一语境下构成不合法中动结构的动词完全排除在中动构句之外。再者，各
种不同的句式往往被赋予不同的生成机制，其间的内在联系得不到很好的解释，并使得
语法机制非常的复杂。
第三，本文将认知语法理论运用于中动研究，对中动结构的方方面面进行了统一的
解释。
在认知语法框架内，中动结构的各个方面都可以得到有机统一的解释。我们认为中
动结构的认知动因是弱化事件主动参与者(即施事)的作用，而凸显被动参与者对于事
件的发生所发挥的积极作用。因此该被动参与者处于认知突显地位，该事件基体的中动
侧面因而选择此被动参与者为子句射体，即主语，并且选择主动态谓语形式，而事件的
主动参与者不被编码进此侧面而仅存在于基体中，因此，它虽没有句法地位我们却能感
觉到中动结构蕴含一个施事。这样，中动结构不允许像被动结构中“被……”这样的短
语出现，以及中动结构中的副词或者形容词不能具有意愿性这两个问题都可以得到合理
解释。因为这样一来，又会突显施事的作用，这跟中动结构的意图是不相符的。从另一
方面来看，一个被动参与者要在一个事件中凸显出来，并被选择为一个主动态句子的射
体，它就必须是能对事件的发生发挥至关重要的甚至是决定性的作用，所以中动构句必
须满足责任条件，即该被动参与者在说话人看来山于某种内在特征而使得事件可以以某
种方式发生或使得事件具有某种特性。
另一方面，中动语义决定了中动结构表述的是一种恒时性特征，不以时间为转移。
因此中动结构虽然建构于事件动词之上，却不描述具体事件，而是概括虚拟事件所体现
出来的特征。而虚拟事件跟具体时间无关，故而中动结构选择(一般)现在时。由于兰
盖克所说的认知局限及事件持续性两方面的问题，现在时不能表述现在正在发生的动作，
而是用来表述类属性，普遍真理，习惯等。这样，中动结构具有非事件性以及具有类属
性特征也就不足为奇，这一者是紧密相关的。同时，主动参与者没有进入侧面，主语山
不具有控制力的被动参与者充当，以及结构中的副词这三方面的因素都大大弱化了谓语
的事件性，动词的及物性降低，事件被转化成关系或状态。可以说中动构句是一种把事
件转化为关系或状态的过程，中动结构对于动词的选择限制也就顺理成章.
本论文认为要制约中动构句的合法性，只需要两个条件，一个是体式条件，它提供
中动构句的可能性，另一个是责任条件，它提供中动构句的必要性，它们共同作用.以
往文献中提出的各种条件基本上都可以置于这两个条件的解释之下。理论上事件过程的
所有被动参与者甚至场景只要满足这两个条件就可以构成合法的中动句，然而中动句的
可接受性还要受到语义和语用因素的约束，这样构成的句子可能因为语义荒诞或语用怪
异而不被接受，但并非是它们结构上不合法。在某一语境中不被接受的句子一旦置于合
适的语境之中，其可接受性便不成问题。本文中的一些语料充分说明了这一点。英语中
动构句能产性较低，在德语、荷兰语和汉语中完全可以接受的中?
This dissertation makes a relatively comprehensive description of the middle constructions in three West-Germanic languages and Chinese, and on the basis of that provides a unified cognitive account of the middle formation, the restrictions middle formation is subject to, and the syntactic and semantic features middles display.The work I did in this thesis is made up of four parts.First, the status of Chinese non-agent subject qilai construction as middle construction Chinese is established.The middle construction has been a hot topic abroad during the past quarter of a century and is studied extensively in a number of European languages. It is claimed that middle semantics is universal. In contrast, the study has just begun in Chinese. The checking of the data of the Chinese qilai constructions with a non-agent subject plus verb in simple active morphology and an adjective against the unanimously agreed criteria for middles in West Germanic languages, English in particular, shows that Chinese qilai constructions realize all facets of middle semantics and exhibit the same semantic properties and similar syntactic representations of the middles in West Germanic languages. The middle status of such qilai constructions is established, which belongs to Type 1 middle construction like those in West Germanic languages. Compared with the middles in West Germanic languages, the middle construction is far more productive in Chinese. Various passive participants of event and even settings can be middle
subject.Second, the implausibility of the prevailing accounts of middles in the generative framework is illustrated.Through a detailed analysis of both typical and atypical middles, it is found that the now prevailing accounts of middles were mostly constructed on the inadequate understanding of middles, therefore are untenable. They did not probe into the cognitive motivation behind middles and did not realize the decisive role of middle semantics on the syntactic structure, but merely focused on the superficial phenomena such as syntactic representations. Consequently, they could not reasonably explain why middles display such unique syntactic and semantic features, let alone the origins of such features and their correlations. The movement approach in the generative syntax framework in particular, could not explain why some verbs are whereas others are not eligible for middle formation. Neither could it account for the restrictions on middle formation. A lot of actually acceptable middles could not be formed in this manner and a lot of data were left unaccounted for. This approach is also in face of lots of other dilemmas. The inadequate understanding of the nature and motivation of middles also led linguists to put various conditions on middle formation to regulate the three visible elements and even the invisible one in middles, which actually overlap to a great extent and often cover only a part of the data. Also the neglecting of semantic and pragmatic factors led them to completely exclude verbs which form unacceptable middles in a certain context. Besides, the obviously closely related constructions were thought to be formed in different manners. Their correlations could not be well explained and the syntactic mechanism became even more complicated.Third, and most important of all, middles were analyzed from cognitive approach and all facets of middles were given a unified account.
We argue the motivation of middle construction is to deemphasize the role of the active participant and highlight an active role a passive participant can play in the outcome of virtual events. Therefore, this passive participant is perceptually prominent. It is then selected as the clausal trajector in the middle profile of the event base and at the same time a predicate in active morphology is selected because an active angle can only be construed in active structure. The active participant is not profiled and left unspecified; however, it exists in the base. That is why middles imply an agent though it is syntactically inert. Thus, the p
引文
Abraham, W. 1986, Unaccusatives in German. Groniger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 28:1-72.
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. The Middle Construction and Syntax-semantics Interface. Lingua, 93, 59-90.
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 1995. Middles and Nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.26, No.2, 173-197.
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. forthcoming. Middles, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). The Syntax Companion. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Aranovich, Raul, and Jeffrey Runner. 2000. Diathesis Alternations and Rule Interaction in the Lexicon. In Proceedings of WCCFL 20, eds. K. Meegerdomian and L. A. Bar-el, 15-28. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Authier, J. and Reed, L. 1996. On the Canadian French Middle. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol.27, No.3, 513-523.
Authier, Jean-Marc, and Lisa Reed. 1996. A Microparametric Analysis of Middles in Romance Languages. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, eds. James R. Black and Virginia Motapanyane, 1-23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation; a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barker, Chris and David Dowty. 1993. Non-verbal Thematic Proto-Roles. In Proceedings of NELS 23, vol. 1, Amy Schafcr, ed., GSLA, Amherst, 49-62.
Bassac, Christian and Pierrette Bouillon, 2000. The Polymorphism of Verbs Exhibiting Middle Transitive Alternations in English. Rapport technique, ISSCO, Universite de Geneve.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bresnan, Joan Wanda ed. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Brinker, K. 1969. Zum Problem der Angeblich Passivnahen Reflexivkonstruktionen in der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Muttersprache 79:1-11.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. A Government and Binding Approach. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Carlson, G 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G & F. J. Pelletier (ed). 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carrier J. and J. H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.23, No.2, 173-234.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2001. The syntax of event structure in Chinese. PhD Dissertation. The University of Hawaii.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2003. Event Structure and Argument Linking in Chinese. Languages and Linguistics 4.2:317-351.
Chao, Y. R. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. R. Freidin, 416-54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1994. 'Bare Phrase Structure,' in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. And in The Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky 1995. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters, In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W, Sternefeld, and T.Vennemann, 506-569, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chung, Taegoo. 1995a. A Semantic Condition on English Middles: A Causative Approach. Korean Journal of Linguistics 20.4:271-288. The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Chung, Taegoo. 1995b. English Middle Constructions: Movement vs. Lexical Approach. Phoenix 33:297-312. Korea University, English Department.
Chung, Taegoo. 1996. On English Middle Formation. Studies in Generative Grammar. Vol.6. No. 2, 281-317
Chung, Yoon-Suk. 2001. Tough Construction in English: a Construction Grammar Approach. UC Berkeley PhD Dissertation.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On Si Constructions and the Theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19:521-581.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11:16-30.
Cook, Vivian & Mark Newson. 1996/2000. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Cornips, L. 1996. The spread of the reflexive adjunct middle in the Limburg dialects: 1885-1994 [A]. In Crit Cremers and Marcel Den Dikken (eds.): Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornips, L & A. Hulk. 1999. Affected Objects in Heerlen Dutch and Romance. In: Languages in Contrast 1.2, 191-210.
Cornips, L. & A. Hulk. 1996. Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French. Studia Linguistica 50,1. 1-21.
Davidse, K and L. Heyvaert. 1999/2003. On the so-called middle construction in English and Dutch. In: S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Empirical approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Davidse, K. 1991. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, K.U. Leuven.
Davidse, K. (1992), Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-Headed Grammar of Actions and Events. In: M. Davies & L. Ravelli, eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics, London: Pinter, 105-135.
Declerk, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language. 55:59-138.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1987. Studies in Ergativity: Introduction. Lingua. 71:1-16.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 3: 547-619.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Eva Klingvall. 2003. Aspectual Properties of the English Middle Construction. In Henrik Gyllstad and Fredrik Heinat (eds.): Working Papers in Linguistics: Volume 3. The Department of English in Lund
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.
Fagan, S. 1988. The English Middle. Linguistic Inquiry. 19, 181-203
Fagan, S. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of middle constructions: a study with special reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mapping in thoughts and language. Cambridge: CUP.
Fawcett, R.P. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction. Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind. Exeter & Heidelberg: Exeter University Press & Groos Verlag.
Fellbaum, C. & A. Zribi-Hertz (1989), La Construction Moyenne en Francais et en Anglais: Etude de Syntaxe et de Semantique Comparees. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 18, 19-57.
Fellbaum, C. (1985), Adverbs in agentless actives and passives? CLS 21, Part 2, Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, 21-31.
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the middle constructions in English. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Linguistic Club
Fellbaum, Christiane, and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Construction in French and English: A Comparative Study of its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In: E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.). Universals in linguistic theory. London: Holt, Rinehart & Wintson. 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G Thurgood and K. Whistler, eds. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: BLS. 123-131.
Fillmore, Charles. 1976. The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical methods in linguistics. 5-29.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977a. Topics in lexical semantics. In: R. W. Cole, edL, Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977b. The case for case reopened. In: P. Cole and J. Sadock, eds, Syntax and semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York/London: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderi di Semantica VI, 222-254.
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. 1993. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co..
Fujita, Koji. 1994. Economy of Derivation and the English Middles. In Minimalist Approaches to Syntax and Morphology, ed. Sung-Hyuck Park, et. al. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Company.
Givon. T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7:394-415
Goldberg, A.. Construction: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1995
Goldberg, Adele E. and F. Ackerman. 2001. The Pragmatics of Obligatory Adjuncts. Language, 77.4:798-814.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive Critics. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 87-148. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Haiman, J., Iconic and economic motivation, Language, vol.59, 1983
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon project Working Papers 10. Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1988. Explaining and constraining the English middle. Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 53-109. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Halliday, Michael. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 1. Journal of linguistics, 3.1:37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold.
Heyvaert, L & K. Davidse. 2002. The Propositional meaning of English middles. Preprint Nr. 194. Department of linguistics, University of Leuven
Hirschbuhler, Paul. 1988. The Middle and the Pseudo-Middle in French. In Advances in Romance Linguistics, eds. David Birdsong and Jean-Pierre Montreuil, 97-111. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Hoekstra, T. 1984. Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle Constructions in Dutch and English. In Knowledge and Language. Vol. 2: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, ed. Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham, 183-220, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1999. Auxiliary Selection in Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:67-84.
Hopper, Paul. 1985. Causes and affects. CLS 21: Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity: 67-88.
Hopper, Paul J..and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251-299.
Hopper, Paul Land Sandra A. (eds.). 1982. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 15. Studies in Transitivity. New York: Academic Press.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 1998. Affected objects in Heerlen Dutch and Romance [J]. Languages in Contrast. 1:199-210.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 2000. Reflexives in middles and the syntax-semantics interface [A]. In Interface Strategies, eds. Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert and Eric Reuland. Amsterdam: Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences.
Iwata, Seizi. 1999. On the Status of an Implicit Argument in Middles. Journal of Linguistics 35:527-553.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X' Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986a. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17:587-622.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986b. Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs, and Extraction. In Hagit Borer, ed., The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, volume 19 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, 15-42.
Jespersen, Otto (1914-1929), A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Katz, Graham E. 1995. Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. PhD Dissertations. University of Rochester.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage and Individual Level Predication. In: The Generic Book. G Carlson and J. Pelletier, eds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kay, Paul. 2000. Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction, ms. Paper presented at ICCG1, Berkeley
Kayne, R. 1982. Comments on Chomsky's Chapter 'on the Representation of Form and Function'. In Perspectives on Mental Representation, eds. J. Mehler, E. Walker and M. Garret, 453-456. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kemmer, S. 1993a, The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23], Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kemmer, S. 1993b. Middle voice, transitivity, and the elaboration of events. In Fox & Hopper (eds.), 1994.
Kerstens, Johan. 2000. Argumentstructuur in het Nederlands. Ms. Utrecht University.
Keyser, S. J., and Roeper, T. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English, Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 381-416
Keyser, Samuel J. and Thomas Roeper. 1992. Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23:89-125.
Kim, Kwang-sup. 1995. Argument Association in Eventless Constructions: Middle and Tough-Constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21.1-2:193-212. The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Klingvall, Eva. 2003. Aspectual Properties of the English Middle Construction. In Henrik Gyllstad and Fredrik Heinat (eds.). Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 3. The Department of English in Lund
Krifka, et al. 1995. Genericity: an introduction. In G Carlson and F.J.Pelletier, (eds.), The Generic Book, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1-124.
Lakoff, G 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. CLS 13: 236-287.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1997. Generics and habituals. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene Dirven (eds.). On conditional again. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 191-222.
Langacker, R. W. 1999a. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1999b. Virtual reality. Studies in linguistic sciences 29.2.77-103.
Langacker, R. W. 2001. The English present tense. English languages and linguistics 5.2.251-271
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632.
Lekakou, Marika. 2001. Why There Is No Middle Construction. Ms. University College London.
Lekakou, M. 2002. The Realization of Middle Semantics in English and Greek. UCL working paper in linguists.
Lemmens, Maarten. 1997. Lexical constraints on constructional flexibility: English 'Middable' Verbs. Paper presented to the 5th ICLC in Amsterdam (1997).
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative Constructions in English, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1988), Nonevent -er Nominals. Linguistics 26, 1067-1083.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. Lingua 92:35-77.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth. 1987. The Middle Construction and Ergativity. Lingua. 71: 17-31.
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In: Charles N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. London /New York: Academic Press, pp. 457-489.
Li,Charles and Sandra A.Thompson. 1981. A Functional Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese.Berkeley:University of California Press
Li,Charles and Sandra A.Thompson. 1993. On "middle voice" verbs in Mandarin. In Fox, B. and Paul Hopper (eds.) 1993. 231-246.
Lyons, John 1969, Introduction to theoretical linguistics, Cambridge University Press, London.
Masuko, M. 1999. Conditions for Argument Suppression. In V . Kordoni (ed.) Proceedings of the ESSLLI-99 W orkshop on Lexical Semantics and Linking in Constraint-Based Theories. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, pp.111- 125
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. Restructuring and Reanalysis. MIT.
Massam, Diane. 1982. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28:115-137.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1999/2001. Introducing transformational grammar: from principles and parameters to minimalism. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited/ Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Perlmutter David 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In J. Jaeger et. al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 157-189.
Pitz, Anneliese. 1987. Middle Constructions in German. Ms. University of Trondheim.
Plank, F. 1979. Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations. London/New York: Academic Press.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23:261-303.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 5. pp. 208-237
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformation Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1997/2002. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: CUP/Beijing: Peking University Press.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English Middle and Agentivity, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.30 No.1,147-155.
Rapoport, T.R. (1993), Verbs in depictives and resultatives? in: J. Pustejovsky, ed., Semantics and the Lexicon, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 163-184.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Rice, S. (1988), Unlikely Lexical Entries. BLS 14, 202-212.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501-557.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Roberts, I. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roeper, T and M. E. Siegel. 1978. A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199-260.
Roeper, Thomas and Angeliek van Hout. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio's Generalization and feature movement in the lexicon. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 185-211.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18:267-310.
Ryder, M.E. 1991a. From writer to in-the-parker: an analysis of -er nominals in English. Lecture presented at the Second International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Santa Cruz, California, July 29 - August 2.
Ryder, M.E. 1991b. Mixers, Mufflers and Mousers: The Extending of the -er Suffix as a case of Prototype Reanalysis. BLS 17,299-311.
Ryder, M.E. (1997), Development of the English -er suffix: a corpus study? Lecture presented at the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 14 - 19.
Sandra Thompson & Charles Li. 1983. The category auxiliary in Mandarin. In Ting-chi Tang, Robert L. Cheng & Ying-che Li. (eds.) Studies in Chinese syntax and semantics - Universe and scope: Presupposition and quantification in Chinese. Tapei: Student Book Co. Ltd.
Santos, Diana. 1993. Integrating tense, aspect and genericity. Actas do IX Encontro da Associacao Portuguesa de Linguistica (Coimbra, 29/9-1/8/93), 391-405.
Shi, D. 1990. Is there object to subject raising in Chinese. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 305-314. Berkeley: University of Southern California.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. In Shibatani Masayoshi (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 6, New York: Academic Press.
Smith, C.S. 1978. "Jespersen's 'Move and Change' Class and Causative Verbs in English", in: M.A. Jazayery et al., (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. Vol. II: Descriptive Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 101-109.
Steinbach, M. 1998. Middles in German. PhD dissertation, Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin.
Steinbach, M. 1999. Argument structure and reflexivity: Middle construction in German. Proceedings of TLS 99 Conference on Argument Structure. Austin/Texa.
Stroik, T. 1992. Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 127-137
Stroik, T. 1995. On Middle Formation: A Reply to Zribi-Hertz. Linguistic Inquiry, 26.1: 165-171.
Stroik, T. 1999. Middles and Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 30.1:119-131.
Sung, K. 1992. Chinese Middle and the Affectedness Condition. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Singapore.
Tenny, C.L. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectednesss, MIT.
Tenny, Carol I. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds.). Events as Grammatical Objects. CSLI Publications. 285-334.
lingerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. 1996/2001. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman/ Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press.
Van Oosten, J. 1977. Subjects and Agenthood in English, CLS 13, 459-71.
Van Oosten, J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A cognitive Explanation [M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC) Publications.
Vendler, Z. 1984. Adverbs of Action, CLS 20, Part 2, Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, 297-307.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Villafafia, Christina. 2002. Subject Prominence in English Middles. George Mason University Working Papers in Linguistics.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication, Linguistic Inquiry 11:203-238.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1:81-114.
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. Prelexical syntax and the Voice hypothesis. In Caroline Fery & Wolfgang Stemefeld (eds.) Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 487-513. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Yamaoka. 1988. A semantic and prototype discussion of the 'be easy to V structure: A Possible Explanation of Its Acquisition Process. Applied Linguistics 9:4:385-401.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1993. On Stroik's Analysis of English Middle Constructions [J], Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.24, No.3, 583-589.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1982. The "Middle-Se" Construction in French and Its Status in the Triad Middle Voice-Passive-Reflexive. Lingvisticae Investigationes 6: 345-401.
Zw
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1998. Nonargument Middles in Dutch. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 42, 109-128.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1998. Nonargument Middles in Dutch. Ms., GAGL. Groningen University.
Zwart, J-W. 1997. On the Relevance of Aspect for Middle Formation. Ms. University of Groningen.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. On the Generic Character of Middle Constructions. Ms. NWO/University of Groningen.
奥田宽．2000．作为助动词的“容易”和“好”．载《语法研究和探索》(十)．北京：商务印书馆．
曹逢甫、林丽卿．2001．横看成岭侧成峰——以汉语难字结构为例谈句法与构词之间的关系．现代中国语研究．第2期
曹宏．2004．中动句对动词形容词的选择限制及其理据．语言科学．第3卷第1期．11-28
陈昌来．2003．现代汉语语义平面问题研究．上海：学林出版社
程工．1999．语言共性论．上海：上海外语教育出版社
戴曼纯．2001．中动结构的句法特征．外语学刊．第4期．31-36页．
董秀芳．2002．论句法结构的词汇化．语言研究．第3期(总第48期)56-65页
菲尔墨．2001．格辩(中译本)．胡明扬译．北京：商务印书馆
傅雨贤、周小兵．1991．口语中的助动词．载《语法研究和探索》(五)(中国语文杂志社编)．北京：语文出版社．184-196页
高兴刚．2000．空算子与中间结构．现代外语．(第23卷)第2期125-136页．
高兴刚．2001．英语中间结构辨析．广州大学学报(综合版)第15卷第7期79-81页
古川裕．2003．现代汉语的“中动语态句式middle construction”——语态变换的句法实现和词法实现．汉语被动表述问题国际学术研讨会论文．2003／10／11-14．武汉华中师范大学．
韩景泉．2003．英语中间结构的生成．外语教学与研究．第3期．179-188页．
韩景泉、何建珍．2004．评高兴刚的中间结构分析．解放军外国语学院学报．第1期．15-20．
何文忠．2004．汉语和西日耳曼语中的附加语中动结构．解放军外国语学院学报．第1期21-25．
刘月华．1998．趋向补语通释．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社
吕叔湘．1981．现代汉语八百词．北京：商务印书馆
罗瑞球．2003．英语中动结构的句法、语义特征．广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版)第25卷第4期84-86页
马庆株．1992．汉语动词和动词性结构．北京：北京语言学院出版社
马希文．1987．与动结式动词有关的某些句式．中国语文．第6期
孟琮 等编．1999．汉语动词用法词典．北京：商务印书馆
沈家煊．1999．不对称和标记论．南昌：江西教育出版社
沈家煊．2001．语言的主观性和主观化．外语教学与研究．第4期268-320页．
沈园．2000．逻辑判断基本类型及其在语言中的反应．当代语言学2.3：125-137．
石毓智．2000．语法的认知语义基础．南昌：江西教育出版社
石毓智．2001．语法的形式和理据．南昌：江西教育出版社
石毓智．2002．现代汉语语法系统的建立——动补结构的产生及其影响．北京：北京语言大学出版社．
石毓智、李讷．2001．汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制．北京：北京大学出版社．
宋国明．1997．句法理论概要．北京：中国社会科学出版社．
太田辰夫．2003．中国语历史文法(中文修订版)．蒋绍愚、徐昌华译．北京：北京大学出版社．
万德勒．2002．哲学中的语言学(中文版)陈嘉映译．北京：华夏出版社．
王蓓蓓．2002．关于德语中间结构的基本特征．四川外语学院学报．第2期79-82页
王蓓蓓．2002．德英语中间结构研究．外语与外语教学．第4期21-23页
徐杰．2001．普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象．北京：北京大学出版社
徐杰．2001．“及物性”特征与相关的四类动词．语言研究．第3期(总第44期)1-11页
徐烈炯、刘丹青．1998．话题的结构与功能．上海：上海教育出版社
徐盛桓．2002．常规关系与句式结构研究——试析汉语不及物动词带宾语现象．第二届全国认知语言学研讨会．苏州大学．2002年10月
徐盛桓．2002．常规关系与认知化．外国语．第1期6-16页．
徐盛桓．2002．认知语言学研究的新视点．外语教学与研究．第5期373-376页．
徐盛桓．2002．语义数量特征与英语中动结构．外语教学与研究，第6期436-443页
许余龙．2002．对比语言学．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
杨素英．1999．从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系．当代语言学．第1期30-40页．
赵彦春．2001．Burzio内论元说证伪．现代外语．第2期133-142页．
朱德熙．1982．语法讲义[M]．北京：商务印书馆
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. The Middle Construction and Syntax-semantics Interface. Lingua, 93, 59-90.
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 1995. Middles and Nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.26, No.2, 173-197.
Ackema P. and Schoorlemmer, M. forthcoming. Middles, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). The Syntax Companion. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Aranovich, Raul, and Jeffrey Runner. 2000. Diathesis Alternations and Rule Interaction in the Lexicon. In Proceedings of WCCFL 20, eds. K. Meegerdomian and L. A. Bar-el, 15-28. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Authier, J. and Reed, L. 1996. On the Canadian French Middle. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol.27, No.3, 513-523.
Authier, Jean-Marc, and Lisa Reed. 1996. A Microparametric Analysis of Middles in Romance Languages. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, eds. James R. Black and Virginia Motapanyane, 1-23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation; a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barker, Chris and David Dowty. 1993. Non-verbal Thematic Proto-Roles. In Proceedings of NELS 23, vol. 1, Amy Schafcr, ed., GSLA, Amherst, 49-62.
Bassac, Christian and Pierrette Bouillon, 2000. The Polymorphism of Verbs Exhibiting Middle Transitive Alternations in English. Rapport technique, ISSCO, Universite de Geneve.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bresnan, Joan Wanda ed. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Brinker, K. 1969. Zum Problem der Angeblich Passivnahen Reflexivkonstruktionen in der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Muttersprache 79:1-11.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. A Government and Binding Approach. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Carlson, G 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G & F. J. Pelletier (ed). 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carrier J. and J. H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.23, No.2, 173-234.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2001. The syntax of event structure in Chinese. PhD Dissertation. The University of Hawaii.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2003. Event Structure and Argument Linking in Chinese. Languages and Linguistics 4.2:317-351.
Chao, Y. R. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. R. Freidin, 416-54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1994. 'Bare Phrase Structure,' in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. And in The Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky 1995. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters, In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W, Sternefeld, and T.Vennemann, 506-569, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chung, Taegoo. 1995a. A Semantic Condition on English Middles: A Causative Approach. Korean Journal of Linguistics 20.4:271-288. The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Chung, Taegoo. 1995b. English Middle Constructions: Movement vs. Lexical Approach. Phoenix 33:297-312. Korea University, English Department.
Chung, Taegoo. 1996. On English Middle Formation. Studies in Generative Grammar. Vol.6. No. 2, 281-317
Chung, Yoon-Suk. 2001. Tough Construction in English: a Construction Grammar Approach. UC Berkeley PhD Dissertation.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On Si Constructions and the Theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19:521-581.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11:16-30.
Cook, Vivian & Mark Newson. 1996/2000. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Cornips, L. 1996. The spread of the reflexive adjunct middle in the Limburg dialects: 1885-1994 [A]. In Crit Cremers and Marcel Den Dikken (eds.): Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornips, L & A. Hulk. 1999. Affected Objects in Heerlen Dutch and Romance. In: Languages in Contrast 1.2, 191-210.
Cornips, L. & A. Hulk. 1996. Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French. Studia Linguistica 50,1. 1-21.
Davidse, K and L. Heyvaert. 1999/2003. On the so-called middle construction in English and Dutch. In: S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Empirical approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Davidse, K. 1991. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, K.U. Leuven.
Davidse, K. (1992), Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-Headed Grammar of Actions and Events. In: M. Davies & L. Ravelli, eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics, London: Pinter, 105-135.
Declerk, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language. 55:59-138.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1987. Studies in Ergativity: Introduction. Lingua. 71:1-16.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 3: 547-619.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Eva Klingvall. 2003. Aspectual Properties of the English Middle Construction. In Henrik Gyllstad and Fredrik Heinat (eds.): Working Papers in Linguistics: Volume 3. The Department of English in Lund
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.
Fagan, S. 1988. The English Middle. Linguistic Inquiry. 19, 181-203
Fagan, S. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of middle constructions: a study with special reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mapping in thoughts and language. Cambridge: CUP.
Fawcett, R.P. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction. Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind. Exeter & Heidelberg: Exeter University Press & Groos Verlag.
Fellbaum, C. & A. Zribi-Hertz (1989), La Construction Moyenne en Francais et en Anglais: Etude de Syntaxe et de Semantique Comparees. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 18, 19-57.
Fellbaum, C. (1985), Adverbs in agentless actives and passives? CLS 21, Part 2, Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, 21-31.
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the middle constructions in English. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Linguistic Club
Fellbaum, Christiane, and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Construction in French and English: A Comparative Study of its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In: E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.). Universals in linguistic theory. London: Holt, Rinehart & Wintson. 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G Thurgood and K. Whistler, eds. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: BLS. 123-131.
Fillmore, Charles. 1976. The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical methods in linguistics. 5-29.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977a. Topics in lexical semantics. In: R. W. Cole, edL, Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977b. The case for case reopened. In: P. Cole and J. Sadock, eds, Syntax and semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York/London: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderi di Semantica VI, 222-254.
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. 1993. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co..
Fujita, Koji. 1994. Economy of Derivation and the English Middles. In Minimalist Approaches to Syntax and Morphology, ed. Sung-Hyuck Park, et. al. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Company.
Givon. T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7:394-415
Goldberg, A.. Construction: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1995
Goldberg, Adele E. and F. Ackerman. 2001. The Pragmatics of Obligatory Adjuncts. Language, 77.4:798-814.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive Critics. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 87-148. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Haiman, J., Iconic and economic motivation, Language, vol.59, 1983
Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon project Working Papers 10. Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1988. Explaining and constraining the English middle. Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 53-109. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Halliday, Michael. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 1. Journal of linguistics, 3.1:37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold.
Heyvaert, L & K. Davidse. 2002. The Propositional meaning of English middles. Preprint Nr. 194. Department of linguistics, University of Leuven
Hirschbuhler, Paul. 1988. The Middle and the Pseudo-Middle in French. In Advances in Romance Linguistics, eds. David Birdsong and Jean-Pierre Montreuil, 97-111. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Hoekstra, T. 1984. Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle Constructions in Dutch and English. In Knowledge and Language. Vol. 2: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, ed. Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham, 183-220, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1999. Auxiliary Selection in Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:67-84.
Hopper, Paul. 1985. Causes and affects. CLS 21: Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity: 67-88.
Hopper, Paul J..and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251-299.
Hopper, Paul Land Sandra A. (eds.). 1982. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 15. Studies in Transitivity. New York: Academic Press.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 1998. Affected objects in Heerlen Dutch and Romance [J]. Languages in Contrast. 1:199-210.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 2000. Reflexives in middles and the syntax-semantics interface [A]. In Interface Strategies, eds. Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert and Eric Reuland. Amsterdam: Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences.
Iwata, Seizi. 1999. On the Status of an Implicit Argument in Middles. Journal of Linguistics 35:527-553.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X' Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986a. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17:587-622.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986b. Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs, and Extraction. In Hagit Borer, ed., The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, volume 19 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, 15-42.
Jespersen, Otto (1914-1929), A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Katz, Graham E. 1995. Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. PhD Dissertations. University of Rochester.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage and Individual Level Predication. In: The Generic Book. G Carlson and J. Pelletier, eds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kay, Paul. 2000. Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction, ms. Paper presented at ICCG1, Berkeley
Kayne, R. 1982. Comments on Chomsky's Chapter 'on the Representation of Form and Function'. In Perspectives on Mental Representation, eds. J. Mehler, E. Walker and M. Garret, 453-456. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kemmer, S. 1993a, The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23], Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kemmer, S. 1993b. Middle voice, transitivity, and the elaboration of events. In Fox & Hopper (eds.), 1994.
Kerstens, Johan. 2000. Argumentstructuur in het Nederlands. Ms. Utrecht University.
Keyser, S. J., and Roeper, T. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English, Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 381-416
Keyser, Samuel J. and Thomas Roeper. 1992. Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23:89-125.
Kim, Kwang-sup. 1995. Argument Association in Eventless Constructions: Middle and Tough-Constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21.1-2:193-212. The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Klingvall, Eva. 2003. Aspectual Properties of the English Middle Construction. In Henrik Gyllstad and Fredrik Heinat (eds.). Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 3. The Department of English in Lund
Krifka, et al. 1995. Genericity: an introduction. In G Carlson and F.J.Pelletier, (eds.), The Generic Book, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1-124.
Lakoff, G 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. CLS 13: 236-287.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1997. Generics and habituals. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene Dirven (eds.). On conditional again. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 191-222.
Langacker, R. W. 1999a. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1999b. Virtual reality. Studies in linguistic sciences 29.2.77-103.
Langacker, R. W. 2001. The English present tense. English languages and linguistics 5.2.251-271
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632.
Lekakou, Marika. 2001. Why There Is No Middle Construction. Ms. University College London.
Lekakou, M. 2002. The Realization of Middle Semantics in English and Greek. UCL working paper in linguists.
Lemmens, Maarten. 1997. Lexical constraints on constructional flexibility: English 'Middable' Verbs. Paper presented to the 5th ICLC in Amsterdam (1997).
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative Constructions in English, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1988), Nonevent -er Nominals. Linguistics 26, 1067-1083.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. Lingua 92:35-77.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth. 1987. The Middle Construction and Ergativity. Lingua. 71: 17-31.
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In: Charles N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. London /New York: Academic Press, pp. 457-489.
Li,Charles and Sandra A.Thompson. 1981. A Functional Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese.Berkeley:University of California Press
Li,Charles and Sandra A.Thompson. 1993. On "middle voice" verbs in Mandarin. In Fox, B. and Paul Hopper (eds.) 1993. 231-246.
Lyons, John 1969, Introduction to theoretical linguistics, Cambridge University Press, London.
Masuko, M. 1999. Conditions for Argument Suppression. In V . Kordoni (ed.) Proceedings of the ESSLLI-99 W orkshop on Lexical Semantics and Linking in Constraint-Based Theories. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, pp.111- 125
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. Restructuring and Reanalysis. MIT.
Massam, Diane. 1982. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28:115-137.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1999/2001. Introducing transformational grammar: from principles and parameters to minimalism. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited/ Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Perlmutter David 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In J. Jaeger et. al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 157-189.
Pitz, Anneliese. 1987. Middle Constructions in German. Ms. University of Trondheim.
Plank, F. 1979. Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations. London/New York: Academic Press.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23:261-303.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 5. pp. 208-237
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformation Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1997/2002. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: CUP/Beijing: Peking University Press.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English Middle and Agentivity, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.30 No.1,147-155.
Rapoport, T.R. (1993), Verbs in depictives and resultatives? in: J. Pustejovsky, ed., Semantics and the Lexicon, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 163-184.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Rice, S. (1988), Unlikely Lexical Entries. BLS 14, 202-212.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501-557.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Roberts, I. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roeper, T and M. E. Siegel. 1978. A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199-260.
Roeper, Thomas and Angeliek van Hout. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio's Generalization and feature movement in the lexicon. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 185-211.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18:267-310.
Ryder, M.E. 1991a. From writer to in-the-parker: an analysis of -er nominals in English. Lecture presented at the Second International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Santa Cruz, California, July 29 - August 2.
Ryder, M.E. 1991b. Mixers, Mufflers and Mousers: The Extending of the -er Suffix as a case of Prototype Reanalysis. BLS 17,299-311.
Ryder, M.E. (1997), Development of the English -er suffix: a corpus study? Lecture presented at the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 14 - 19.
Sandra Thompson & Charles Li. 1983. The category auxiliary in Mandarin. In Ting-chi Tang, Robert L. Cheng & Ying-che Li. (eds.) Studies in Chinese syntax and semantics - Universe and scope: Presupposition and quantification in Chinese. Tapei: Student Book Co. Ltd.
Santos, Diana. 1993. Integrating tense, aspect and genericity. Actas do IX Encontro da Associacao Portuguesa de Linguistica (Coimbra, 29/9-1/8/93), 391-405.
Shi, D. 1990. Is there object to subject raising in Chinese. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 305-314. Berkeley: University of Southern California.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. In Shibatani Masayoshi (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 6, New York: Academic Press.
Smith, C.S. 1978. "Jespersen's 'Move and Change' Class and Causative Verbs in English", in: M.A. Jazayery et al., (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. Vol. II: Descriptive Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 101-109.
Steinbach, M. 1998. Middles in German. PhD dissertation, Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin.
Steinbach, M. 1999. Argument structure and reflexivity: Middle construction in German. Proceedings of TLS 99 Conference on Argument Structure. Austin/Texa.
Stroik, T. 1992. Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 127-137
Stroik, T. 1995. On Middle Formation: A Reply to Zribi-Hertz. Linguistic Inquiry, 26.1: 165-171.
Stroik, T. 1999. Middles and Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 30.1:119-131.
Sung, K. 1992. Chinese Middle and the Affectedness Condition. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Singapore.
Tenny, C.L. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectednesss, MIT.
Tenny, Carol I. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds.). Events as Grammatical Objects. CSLI Publications. 285-334.
lingerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. 1996/2001. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman/ Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press.
Van Oosten, J. 1977. Subjects and Agenthood in English, CLS 13, 459-71.
Van Oosten, J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A cognitive Explanation [M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC) Publications.
Vendler, Z. 1984. Adverbs of Action, CLS 20, Part 2, Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, 297-307.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Villafafia, Christina. 2002. Subject Prominence in English Middles. George Mason University Working Papers in Linguistics.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication, Linguistic Inquiry 11:203-238.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1:81-114.
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. Prelexical syntax and the Voice hypothesis. In Caroline Fery & Wolfgang Stemefeld (eds.) Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 487-513. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Yamaoka. 1988. A semantic and prototype discussion of the 'be easy to V structure: A Possible Explanation of Its Acquisition Process. Applied Linguistics 9:4:385-401.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1993. On Stroik's Analysis of English Middle Constructions [J], Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.24, No.3, 583-589.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1982. The "Middle-Se" Construction in French and Its Status in the Triad Middle Voice-Passive-Reflexive. Lingvisticae Investigationes 6: 345-401.
Zw
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1998. Nonargument Middles in Dutch. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 42, 109-128.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1998. Nonargument Middles in Dutch. Ms., GAGL. Groningen University.
Zwart, J-W. 1997. On the Relevance of Aspect for Middle Formation. Ms. University of Groningen.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. On the Generic Character of Middle Constructions. Ms. NWO/University of Groningen.
奥田宽．2000．作为助动词的“容易”和“好”．载《语法研究和探索》(十)．北京：商务印书馆．
曹逢甫、林丽卿．2001．横看成岭侧成峰——以汉语难字结构为例谈句法与构词之间的关系．现代中国语研究．第2期
曹宏．2004．中动句对动词形容词的选择限制及其理据．语言科学．第3卷第1期．11-28
陈昌来．2003．现代汉语语义平面问题研究．上海：学林出版社
程工．1999．语言共性论．上海：上海外语教育出版社
戴曼纯．2001．中动结构的句法特征．外语学刊．第4期．31-36页．
董秀芳．2002．论句法结构的词汇化．语言研究．第3期(总第48期)56-65页
菲尔墨．2001．格辩(中译本)．胡明扬译．北京：商务印书馆
傅雨贤、周小兵．1991．口语中的助动词．载《语法研究和探索》(五)(中国语文杂志社编)．北京：语文出版社．184-196页
高兴刚．2000．空算子与中间结构．现代外语．(第23卷)第2期125-136页．
高兴刚．2001．英语中间结构辨析．广州大学学报(综合版)第15卷第7期79-81页
古川裕．2003．现代汉语的“中动语态句式middle construction”——语态变换的句法实现和词法实现．汉语被动表述问题国际学术研讨会论文．2003／10／11-14．武汉华中师范大学．
韩景泉．2003．英语中间结构的生成．外语教学与研究．第3期．179-188页．
韩景泉、何建珍．2004．评高兴刚的中间结构分析．解放军外国语学院学报．第1期．15-20．
何文忠．2004．汉语和西日耳曼语中的附加语中动结构．解放军外国语学院学报．第1期21-25．
刘月华．1998．趋向补语通释．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社
吕叔湘．1981．现代汉语八百词．北京：商务印书馆
罗瑞球．2003．英语中动结构的句法、语义特征．广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版)第25卷第4期84-86页
马庆株．1992．汉语动词和动词性结构．北京：北京语言学院出版社
马希文．1987．与动结式动词有关的某些句式．中国语文．第6期
孟琮 等编．1999．汉语动词用法词典．北京：商务印书馆
沈家煊．1999．不对称和标记论．南昌：江西教育出版社
沈家煊．2001．语言的主观性和主观化．外语教学与研究．第4期268-320页．
沈园．2000．逻辑判断基本类型及其在语言中的反应．当代语言学2.3：125-137．
石毓智．2000．语法的认知语义基础．南昌：江西教育出版社
石毓智．2001．语法的形式和理据．南昌：江西教育出版社
石毓智．2002．现代汉语语法系统的建立——动补结构的产生及其影响．北京：北京语言大学出版社．
石毓智、李讷．2001．汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制．北京：北京大学出版社．
宋国明．1997．句法理论概要．北京：中国社会科学出版社．
太田辰夫．2003．中国语历史文法(中文修订版)．蒋绍愚、徐昌华译．北京：北京大学出版社．
万德勒．2002．哲学中的语言学(中文版)陈嘉映译．北京：华夏出版社．
王蓓蓓．2002．关于德语中间结构的基本特征．四川外语学院学报．第2期79-82页
王蓓蓓．2002．德英语中间结构研究．外语与外语教学．第4期21-23页
徐杰．2001．普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象．北京：北京大学出版社
徐杰．2001．“及物性”特征与相关的四类动词．语言研究．第3期(总第44期)1-11页
徐烈炯、刘丹青．1998．话题的结构与功能．上海：上海教育出版社
徐盛桓．2002．常规关系与句式结构研究——试析汉语不及物动词带宾语现象．第二届全国认知语言学研讨会．苏州大学．2002年10月
徐盛桓．2002．常规关系与认知化．外国语．第1期6-16页．
徐盛桓．2002．认知语言学研究的新视点．外语教学与研究．第5期373-376页．
徐盛桓．2002．语义数量特征与英语中动结构．外语教学与研究，第6期436-443页
许余龙．2002．对比语言学．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
杨素英．1999．从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系．当代语言学．第1期30-40页．
赵彦春．2001．Burzio内论元说证伪．现代外语．第2期133-142页．
朱德熙．1982．语法讲义[M]．北京：商务印书馆