现代汉语动量词层现的认知研究
|
摘要
量词词类是印欧语系和汉藏语系的重要区别性特征。现代汉语动量词最大程度地反映了汉语语言的复杂性(郭绍虞,1979：27)。以往研究在一定程度上反映了量词的语法表现及本质,并且推动了量词研究的进程,深化了我们对量词的理解。然而,一些主要问题仍然存在。一方面,大多数研究都是描写性质。另一方面,重名量轻动量的现象一直存在,致使动量词的许多语法表现还未被发掘并深入分析。直到上世纪末,这种趋势有所改观。研究者们已经意识到动量词在现代汉语语法中的特殊性,它们在形式和意义方面都表现出多样性。研究这一语言现象不仅有助于对语言共性的理解,也能够进一步揭示汉语语言的个性。
本研究主要从认知角度探讨动量词如何从心智中层现出来并进入自然语言系统。为了达到这一研究目的,以下几个研究问题有待解决：怎样从认知角度阐释动量词并对其分类?动量词从心智中层现的认知过程是怎样的?在层现过程中,动量词次类间有怎样的不同和相同之处?这一层现过程反映了动量词怎样的认知本质?以上研究问题是以对动量词的认知阐释和认知分类为基础的,这些研究问题紧密关联,共同促成研究目的的实现。
该研究采用认知的视角和逆推的研方法,并辅以语料库研究。研究者已逐渐意识到跨学科研究对阐释语言问题的优势。该研究以认知语言学作为主要研究方法,借用了心智哲学中的发现,使二者相得益彰。在认知语言学范式下,不同的方法也被用以阐释该语言现象的不同方面。然而,认知视角下的研究常常受到质疑,因为研究结果往往被认为过于依赖于个体的内省。因此,实证的方法必不可少。该研究以语料库为基础,总结出了动量词在自然语言中的用法以及使用频率并基于对语料库中动量词用法的描写,逆推出动量词层现的过程,建构了理论框架,并从认知角度进行细致的阐释。为了深入研究,该研究对三类动量词次类中的三个使用频率最高的动量词做了个案分析。
该研究认为对动量词的认知阐释以及认知分类应作为进一步研究的基础。从认知角度来看,动量词是范畴化的方式,是行为或事件的某一侧面突显的结果,反过来又对行为或事件加以界性。这一认知阐释为分类问题提供了理据,根据动词语义框架内的参与者角色,动量词可被分为若干类,基于参与者角色的不确定性,动量词次类划分也具有开放性。
动量词在心智中的认知层现过程分为三个阶段：语前思维阶段,语言思维Ⅰ和语言思维Ⅱ。这三个阶段符合人类认知从低级形式向高级形式发展的过程。而且,这三个层次的发展也体现出认知科学的基本原则,即体验性。
首先,在语前思维阶段,三类动量词次类历经了相似的心智活动：意向——活动思维——意象思维——内容思维——概念形或。
其次,在语言思维Ⅰ这一阶段,语法转喻机制发挥作用,某些参与者角色或行为框架本身作为整体会突显,并转喻动量。名词或动词也被再归类为动量词。
然后,在语言思维Ⅱ这一阶段,动量词进入不同的形式-意义的搭配体——构式。形式是意义在句法层面的映射,意义又是对同一场景不同识解角度的反映。三类动量词在构式行为上体现出相似性以及不同特点,语料库检索有利于发现构式类型、个体及使用频率等方面的特点。通过对比,已经发现它们之间形成了种种连续体。
总之,现代汉语动量词,无论是暂时借用的,还是已经语法化了的,虽然在各个层次上可能会有一定的区别,但都经历了相似的认知层现过程。
本研究在以下几方面也具有一定的启示：(1)反应了语言共性和语言个性的互相作用；(2)跨学科的方法有利于相对全面和系统的研究；(3)依据内省法作出的假设应该用实证方法加以论证；(4)多种研究方法为阐释同一语言现象提供了汇流的证据；(5)研究结果对对外汉语教学具有一定的启示。最后,该研究对动量词的后续研究提出了建议。
The presence of classifiers constitutes an important feature distinguishing Sino-Tibet languages from Indo-European languages. Classifiers in Mandarin Chinese reflect the complexity of Chinese language to a great extent (Guo,1979, p.27). By revealing to a certain extent the grammatical nature and behaviors of classifiers, previous studies have promoted the research process and deepened our understanding of classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Some of the major problems, however, still remain. On the one hand, most studies were descriptive in nature. On the other hand, noun classifiers (NCls) had received much more attention than verbal classifiers (VCls). As a result, many grammatical behaviors have neither been discovered nor been explored. It is not until the end of last century that this tendency has changed gradually. The particularity of VCls in Chinese grammar has attracted the attention of researchers due to their diversities in both form and meaning. Thus, the study on this linguistic phenomenon will not only contribute to the understanding of language universality, but also disclose individuality of the Chinese language.
The present study is an attempt to explore from a cognitive perspective how VCls emerge from the mind and enter the natural language system. To reach this goal, several research questions are to be addressed:
What is the cognitive process for VCls to emerge from the mind? What are the similarities and differences of sub-categories of VCls in the process of emergence? What cognitive nature of VCls is reflected by the emergence process of VCls?
The above research questions are based on the cognitive interpretation and classification of VCls which are discussed in the first place. The questions are also intimately connected and the responses may jointly contribute to the research purpose of the present study.
This study intends to adopt the cognitive approach and the method of abduction, supplemented by corpus research. It is true that many researchers have come to realize the advantages of interdisciplinary research on the interpretation of language problems. As for the present study, cognitive linguistics is taken as the principal approach, complemented by findings in the field of philosophy of mind. Within the paradigm of cognitive linguistics, different approaches are to be applied to interpret this linguistic phenomenon. However, studies from the cognitive perspective often receive some skepticism, for they are considered to be so heavily based on individual introspections. Therefore, empirical methods are essential for the settlement. The present study is designed to be a corpus-driven one. The corpus is important in that it does not only provide the actual uses of VCls but also offers evidence of usage frequencies. Based on the description of usages of VCls in the corpus, the study is to abduct the process of their emergence from the mind and to construct a theoretical framework, followed by detailed interpretations from the cognitive perspective. In order to deepen the exploration and reveal more aspects relevant to VCls, three sub-categories are selected for an exploration, namely human body part VCls, instrument VC1s and times VC1s. In each sub-category, one VC1is selected for a case study based on its usage frequency.
In the present study, interpretation and classification of VCls from a cognitive perspective are foundations for the further cognitive study. VCls are means of human categorization. They are linguistic representations for certain aspects relevant to actions or events. These aspects profile and add boundaries to actions or events. The interpretation further provides evidence for the classification. Accordingly, VCls are classified by the participant roles in the action frame. The participant roles vary according to different action frames, so the sub-categories of VCls are also open-ended.
As to the emergence process of VCls, three levels of thinking are proposed: pre-linguistic thinking level, linguistic thinking level Ⅰ and linguistic thinking level Ⅱ. These three levels progress in accordance with the development of human cognition from low to high forms. Besides, the emergence process demonstrates a basic tenet of cognitive science—embodiment.
At pre-linguistic thinking level, three sub-categories of VCls undergo similar mind activities:intention—movement thinking—image thinking—content thinkings—conception formation.
At linguistic thinking level I, the mechanism of grammatical metonymy functions. Certain participant roles or the action frame as a whole profile and metonymically refer to the quantity of actions or events. Meanwhile the recategorization of word classes occurs—ouns or verbs function as VCls.
At linguistic thinking level Ⅱ, VC1s enter different constructions which are pairings of form and meaning. Forms are mapped from meanings and meanings are reflections of different construal perspectives towards the same scene. Through corpus searching, construction types, tokens as well as usage frequencies of each of the three sub-categories of VCls are elicited. The three sub-categories of VC1s show similarities as well as differences in their constructional behaviors. Several continuums have been found by the comparison across them.
In conclusion, VCls, whether they are temporarily applied or grammaticalized ones, must have gone through the same cognitive emergence process, which allows possibility for variations at each level.
The present study has its implications in the following aspects:(1) the study reflects the interaction of language universality and individuality;(2) the interdisciplinary approach is more advantageous in making a relatively comprehensive and systematic study;(3) this corpus-driven research, hows that intuition should be supported by empirical evidence;(4) multiple approaches provide converging evidences for a particular linguistic phenomenon; and (5) the research findings have pedagogical implications, especially for the field of teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Finally, some recommendations for further studies are provided.
本研究主要从认知角度探讨动量词如何从心智中层现出来并进入自然语言系统。为了达到这一研究目的,以下几个研究问题有待解决：怎样从认知角度阐释动量词并对其分类?动量词从心智中层现的认知过程是怎样的?在层现过程中,动量词次类间有怎样的不同和相同之处?这一层现过程反映了动量词怎样的认知本质?以上研究问题是以对动量词的认知阐释和认知分类为基础的,这些研究问题紧密关联,共同促成研究目的的实现。
该研究采用认知的视角和逆推的研方法,并辅以语料库研究。研究者已逐渐意识到跨学科研究对阐释语言问题的优势。该研究以认知语言学作为主要研究方法,借用了心智哲学中的发现,使二者相得益彰。在认知语言学范式下,不同的方法也被用以阐释该语言现象的不同方面。然而,认知视角下的研究常常受到质疑,因为研究结果往往被认为过于依赖于个体的内省。因此,实证的方法必不可少。该研究以语料库为基础,总结出了动量词在自然语言中的用法以及使用频率并基于对语料库中动量词用法的描写,逆推出动量词层现的过程,建构了理论框架,并从认知角度进行细致的阐释。为了深入研究,该研究对三类动量词次类中的三个使用频率最高的动量词做了个案分析。
该研究认为对动量词的认知阐释以及认知分类应作为进一步研究的基础。从认知角度来看,动量词是范畴化的方式,是行为或事件的某一侧面突显的结果,反过来又对行为或事件加以界性。这一认知阐释为分类问题提供了理据,根据动词语义框架内的参与者角色,动量词可被分为若干类,基于参与者角色的不确定性,动量词次类划分也具有开放性。
动量词在心智中的认知层现过程分为三个阶段：语前思维阶段,语言思维Ⅰ和语言思维Ⅱ。这三个阶段符合人类认知从低级形式向高级形式发展的过程。而且,这三个层次的发展也体现出认知科学的基本原则,即体验性。
首先,在语前思维阶段,三类动量词次类历经了相似的心智活动：意向——活动思维——意象思维——内容思维——概念形或。
其次,在语言思维Ⅰ这一阶段,语法转喻机制发挥作用,某些参与者角色或行为框架本身作为整体会突显,并转喻动量。名词或动词也被再归类为动量词。
然后,在语言思维Ⅱ这一阶段,动量词进入不同的形式-意义的搭配体——构式。形式是意义在句法层面的映射,意义又是对同一场景不同识解角度的反映。三类动量词在构式行为上体现出相似性以及不同特点,语料库检索有利于发现构式类型、个体及使用频率等方面的特点。通过对比,已经发现它们之间形成了种种连续体。
总之,现代汉语动量词,无论是暂时借用的,还是已经语法化了的,虽然在各个层次上可能会有一定的区别,但都经历了相似的认知层现过程。
本研究在以下几方面也具有一定的启示：(1)反应了语言共性和语言个性的互相作用；(2)跨学科的方法有利于相对全面和系统的研究；(3)依据内省法作出的假设应该用实证方法加以论证；(4)多种研究方法为阐释同一语言现象提供了汇流的证据；(5)研究结果对对外汉语教学具有一定的启示。最后,该研究对动量词的后续研究提出了建议。
The presence of classifiers constitutes an important feature distinguishing Sino-Tibet languages from Indo-European languages. Classifiers in Mandarin Chinese reflect the complexity of Chinese language to a great extent (Guo,1979, p.27). By revealing to a certain extent the grammatical nature and behaviors of classifiers, previous studies have promoted the research process and deepened our understanding of classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Some of the major problems, however, still remain. On the one hand, most studies were descriptive in nature. On the other hand, noun classifiers (NCls) had received much more attention than verbal classifiers (VCls). As a result, many grammatical behaviors have neither been discovered nor been explored. It is not until the end of last century that this tendency has changed gradually. The particularity of VCls in Chinese grammar has attracted the attention of researchers due to their diversities in both form and meaning. Thus, the study on this linguistic phenomenon will not only contribute to the understanding of language universality, but also disclose individuality of the Chinese language.
The present study is an attempt to explore from a cognitive perspective how VCls emerge from the mind and enter the natural language system. To reach this goal, several research questions are to be addressed:
What is the cognitive process for VCls to emerge from the mind? What are the similarities and differences of sub-categories of VCls in the process of emergence? What cognitive nature of VCls is reflected by the emergence process of VCls?
The above research questions are based on the cognitive interpretation and classification of VCls which are discussed in the first place. The questions are also intimately connected and the responses may jointly contribute to the research purpose of the present study.
This study intends to adopt the cognitive approach and the method of abduction, supplemented by corpus research. It is true that many researchers have come to realize the advantages of interdisciplinary research on the interpretation of language problems. As for the present study, cognitive linguistics is taken as the principal approach, complemented by findings in the field of philosophy of mind. Within the paradigm of cognitive linguistics, different approaches are to be applied to interpret this linguistic phenomenon. However, studies from the cognitive perspective often receive some skepticism, for they are considered to be so heavily based on individual introspections. Therefore, empirical methods are essential for the settlement. The present study is designed to be a corpus-driven one. The corpus is important in that it does not only provide the actual uses of VCls but also offers evidence of usage frequencies. Based on the description of usages of VCls in the corpus, the study is to abduct the process of their emergence from the mind and to construct a theoretical framework, followed by detailed interpretations from the cognitive perspective. In order to deepen the exploration and reveal more aspects relevant to VCls, three sub-categories are selected for an exploration, namely human body part VCls, instrument VC1s and times VC1s. In each sub-category, one VC1is selected for a case study based on its usage frequency.
In the present study, interpretation and classification of VCls from a cognitive perspective are foundations for the further cognitive study. VCls are means of human categorization. They are linguistic representations for certain aspects relevant to actions or events. These aspects profile and add boundaries to actions or events. The interpretation further provides evidence for the classification. Accordingly, VCls are classified by the participant roles in the action frame. The participant roles vary according to different action frames, so the sub-categories of VCls are also open-ended.
As to the emergence process of VCls, three levels of thinking are proposed: pre-linguistic thinking level, linguistic thinking level Ⅰ and linguistic thinking level Ⅱ. These three levels progress in accordance with the development of human cognition from low to high forms. Besides, the emergence process demonstrates a basic tenet of cognitive science—embodiment.
At pre-linguistic thinking level, three sub-categories of VCls undergo similar mind activities:intention—movement thinking—image thinking—content thinkings—conception formation.
At linguistic thinking level I, the mechanism of grammatical metonymy functions. Certain participant roles or the action frame as a whole profile and metonymically refer to the quantity of actions or events. Meanwhile the recategorization of word classes occurs—ouns or verbs function as VCls.
At linguistic thinking level Ⅱ, VC1s enter different constructions which are pairings of form and meaning. Forms are mapped from meanings and meanings are reflections of different construal perspectives towards the same scene. Through corpus searching, construction types, tokens as well as usage frequencies of each of the three sub-categories of VCls are elicited. The three sub-categories of VC1s show similarities as well as differences in their constructional behaviors. Several continuums have been found by the comparison across them.
In conclusion, VCls, whether they are temporarily applied or grammaticalized ones, must have gone through the same cognitive emergence process, which allows possibility for variations at each level.
The present study has its implications in the following aspects:(1) the study reflects the interaction of language universality and individuality;(2) the interdisciplinary approach is more advantageous in making a relatively comprehensive and systematic study;(3) this corpus-driven research, hows that intuition should be supported by empirical evidence;(4) multiple approaches provide converging evidences for a particular linguistic phenomenon; and (5) the research findings have pedagogical implications, especially for the field of teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Finally, some recommendations for further studies are provided.
引文
1 Three criteria for distinguishing classifier languages from non-classifier languages are "(1) classifier languages have classifiers that are restricted to characteristics of entities; (2) classifier lanaguages have classifiers that are restricted to certain constructions; (3) classifier languages belong to one of four types—(ⅰ) numeral classifier languages, (ⅱ) concordial classifier languages, (ⅲ) predicate classifier languages, and (ⅳ) intra-locative classifier languages (Allan 1977)" (Jenny & Sera,2009, p.2)
2“表示事物或动作的数量单位的词是量词……”
3《“暂拟汉语教学语法系统”简述》(1954年至1956年拟订)
4 "Innate language" to the mind activities is what "natural language" to linguistic activities (for a detailed discussion, see 3.2.3).
5《“暂拟汉语教学语法系统”简述》(1954年至1956年拟订)
6“表示事物或动作的数量单位的词是量词。量词有两种：计算实体事物的是物量词,计算行为动作的是动量词。”
7《马氏文通》
8“…他言数者,必有所附之名。数先于名者常也”
9《现代汉语量词用法词典》
10 CCL:Center for Chinese Linguistics PKU, a corpus built up by Peking University. (Web:http://ccl.pku.edu.cn)
11 personal communication
Adams, K. (1982). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer Nicobarese and Asian subfamilies of Austroasatic. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.
Adams, K. (1986). Numeral classifiers in Austroasiatic. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp.241-262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Adams, K. (1989). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian Subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No.101. Canberra:Australian National University.
Adams, K.,& Conklin, N. (1973). Toward a theory of natural classification. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting (pp.1-10). Chicago Linguistic Society,
Aiknenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers:A typology of noun categorization devices. United States:Oxford University Press.
Allan, K. (1977). Classifiers. Language,53,281-311.
Allwood, J. (1999). Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. In J. Allwood & P. Gardenfors (Eds.), Cognitive semantics: meaning and cognition (pp.1-17). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Amazaki, O. (2006). A functional analysis of numeral quantifier constructions in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York.
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy,9,5-16.
Barcelona, A. (1997). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics. Atlantis,19(1),21-48.
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona, Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads:a cognitive perspective (pp.31-58). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update. In R. Dirven,& R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2009). Motivation of construction meaning and form:The roles of metonymy and inference. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.363-402). John Benjamins B. V.
Bates, E.,& MacWhinney. B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In L. Gleitman,& E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition:the state of the state of the art (pp.173-218). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Becker, A. L. (1975). A linguistic image of nature:The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics,165,109-121.
Berg, A.,& Diewald, G. (2008). Introduction:constructions and language change. In A. Berg,& G. Diewald (Eds.), Constnicitons and language change (pp.1-21). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Berlin, B. (1968). Tzeltal numeral classifiers:A study in ethnographic semantics. The Hague:Mouton.
Bernardez, E. (2005). Social cognition:variation, language, and culture in a cognitive linguistic typology. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics:Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 191-222). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Biq, Y. (2002). Classifier and construction:the interaction of grammatical categories and cognitive strategies. Language and Linguistics,3 (3),521-542.
Capell, A. (1940). The classification of languages in north and northwest Australia. Oceania,10,241-272.
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for "Allostructions" [OL]. In Doris Schonefeld (ed.), Constructions all over:Case studies and theoretical implications [OL]. Constructions Special Volume,1(7). Retrieve from http://www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/683.
Carroll, J. B.,& Casagrande. J. B. (1958). The function of language classifications in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), Readings in social psychology (pp.1-30). New York:Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Chao, Y. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Cheng, L. S.,& Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-Wan Tang, Yi-Ge Tang:Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing-Hua Journal of Chinese Studies,25(3),385-412.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of Semantic Parameter. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp.53-104). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Clark, E. V.,& Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language,55, 767-811.
Clausner, T. C.& Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image-schemas. Cognitive Linguistics,10,1-31.
Conrad, S. M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System,27(1),18.
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge/New York:Cambridge University Press.
Craig, C. (1986). Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Crane, T. (2001). Elements of mind:an introduction to the philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2000). Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics, and vice versa. In Janssen, T.,& G. Redeker (Eds.), Foundations, Scope and Methodology (pp.61-93). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar:Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Denny, J. P (1976). What are noun classifiers good for? Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,122-132.
Diez Velasco, O. I. (2000). A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some HAND metonymies in English and Spanish. Atlantis,22 (2),51-67.
Diez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Body part metonymies in action and perception frames:A cognitive analysis. EPOS,18,309-323.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar, Volume. Ⅰ:the structure of the clause. Dordrecht:Foris.
Dixon, R. M. (1968). Noun classes. Lingua,21,104-125.
Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection. Leiden:University of Leiden dissertation.
Downing, P. (1984). Japanese numeral classifiers:A syntactic, semantic and functional profile. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Downing, P. (1993). Pragmatic and semantic constraints on numeral quantifier position in Japanese. Linguistics,29,65-93.
Erbaugh, M. S. (1986). Taking stock:the development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp.399-436). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Fehri, F.,& Vinet, M-T. (2008). Verbal and nominal classes in Arabic and Chinese. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes,37,55-83.
Ferreira, M. (2005). Event quantification and plurality. Doctoral Dissertaion. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In B. Emmon,& T. H. Robert (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp.1-88). New York:Holt
Fillmore, C. J. (1970). Subjects, speakers and roles. Ohio Working Papers in Linguistics,4,31-63. Ohio:The Ohio State University.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler,& S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability & language behavior (pp.85-101). New York:Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS,Ⅱ,73-86.
Fodor, J. A. (1985). Fodor's guide to mental representations. Mind,94,76-100.
Friedrich, P. (1970). Shape in grammar. Language,46,379-407.
Gibbs Jr. R. W. (2005). Embodied action in thought and language. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics:Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.225-247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givon, T. (1984). Syntax:A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London:the University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work:The nature of generalization in language. New York:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.,& D. Casenhiser (2006). English construcions. In B. Aarts,& A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English lingusitics (pp.343-356). England: Blackwell Publishing
Goldberg, A.,& Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language,80 (3),532-568.
Greenberg, J. H. (1972). Numeral classifiers and substantial number:problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals,9,1-39.
Greenberg, J. H. (1975). Dynamic aspects of word order in the numeral classifier. In C. N. Li. (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp.27-45). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1977). Numeral classifiers and substantial number:problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In A. Makkai, V. Makkai,& L. Heilmann (Eds.), Linguistics at the crossroads (pp.276-300). Paova, Italy:Liviana Editrice.
Gries, S. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics:A study of particle placement. New York:Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Guthrie, M. (1948a). The classification of Bantu languages. Oxford:University Press.
Guthrie, M. (1948b). Gender, number and person in Bantu languages. BSOS,12, 847-56.
Haas, M. R. (1942). The use of numeral classifiers in Thai. Language,18,201-206.
Hla, P. (1965). Are-examination of Burmese clssifiers. Lingua,15,163-185.
Hofherr, P. C. (2010). Verbal plurality and event plurality. Retrieved from http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/2010_summerschool/pdf/course_ma terials/Cabredo201Op1V.pdf
Hopper, P. J.& Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language,60,703-752.
Hopper, P. J.,& Thompson, S. A. (1985). The iconicity of the universal categories 'noun' and 'verb'. In J. Haiman (Ed.). Iconicity in syntax (pp.151-183). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hsu. T. (2009). Emergence of Chinese sortal classifiers and the interactive model of human categorization. USTWPL,5,29-57.
Huang, C. (2006-2007). Argument realization of Chinese result and phase complements. UTA Working Papers in Linguistics.
Huang C.,& Ahrens, K. (2003). Individuals, kinds and events:classifier coercion of nouns. Language Science,25,353-373.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jenny Yi-chun, K.& M. D. Sera (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization: the role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. J East Asian Linguist, (18), 1-19.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Jones, R. (1970). Classifier constructions in southeast Asia. Journal of American Oriental Society,90 (1),1-12.
Kay, P.,& Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:The What's X doing Y? construction. Language,75,1-34.
Keiko, M. (1998). On the syntax of classifiers. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Maryland.
Kelson, J. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns:The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press
Kemmer, S.,& Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction. In S. Kemmer,& M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-based model of language (pp. vii-xxviii). Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Kim, J. (1995). Problems in the philosophy of mind. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Knowles, M.,& Moon, R. (2006). Introducing metaphor. London & New York: Routledge.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor:A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z.,& Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy:developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,9(1),37-77.
Kratzer, A. (2005). On the plurality of verbs. In J. Dolling & T. Heyde-Zybatow (Eds). Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (pp.269-299). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. Benthem,& B P. Boas, (Eds.). Semantics and contextual expression (pp.75-115). Dordrecht:Foris.
Krzysztof K. (2007). Perspectives on meonymy:Proceedings of the International Conference "Perspectives on Meonymy" held in Lodz, Poland. Europaischer Verlag der Wissenschaften:Peter Lang.
Kuo Y.,& Sera, M. D. (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization:the role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. East Asian Linguist,18,1-19.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. (2nd ed.). (pp.202-251). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G.& Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason:A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lam, S.& Vinet, M. T. (2005). Classifieurs nominaux et verbaux en chinois Mandarin, in Actes du Congres annuel de l'Association canadienne de linguistique (pp.1-11).
Landman, F. (1989). Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy,12,559-605.
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Dorchrcht:Kluwer.
Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Nouns and verbs. Language,63 (1),53-94.
Langacker, R. W. (1987b). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume Ⅰ:Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.). Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127-164). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.3-48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image and symbol. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume Ⅱ:Discriptive application. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics,4, 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars:cognitive, radical and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101-159). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.).Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45-71). John Benjamins B. V.
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indians University Press.
Li, C.& Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese:A functional reference grammar. Berkeley:University of California at Berkeley Press.
Li, Y. H. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,8, 75-99.
Lu, B. (1998). Word Order Variation in Ta Shuo-Le Wo San-Ci Huaihua. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,33 (2).
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Introduction:Research issues in cognitive linguistics. In Luchjenbroers, J. Cognitive linguistics investigations:Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp.1-10). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Cognitive linguistics investigations:Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition:A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Lycan, W. G. (2000). Philosophy of language—A contemporary introduction (1st ed.). London:Routledge
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge & England: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol.1). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Marquez, M. G., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S.,& Spivey, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Methods in cognitive lingusitics. Amsterdam& Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martinez, N. A. (2000-2001). High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish: the case of the action for process, activity for event, and action for result metonymies. RESLA,14,23-36.
Matthewson, L. (2001). Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics,9,145-189.
Mazuka, R.,& Friedman. R. (2000). Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English:Is language the primary determinant in object classification? Journal of East Asian Linguistics,9(4),353-377.
McEnery T.& Xiao R. (2007). Quantifying constructions in English and Chinese:A corpus-based contrastive study [Z/OL]. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/19_Paper.pdf.
Meulen, A. (1984) Events, quantities and individuals. In Landman, F.,& F. Veltman (Eds.). Varieties of formal semantics (pp.259-280). Dordrecht:Foris.
Nakanishi, K. (2007a). Formal properties of measurement construction. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Nakanishi, K. (2007b). Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguist Philos,30,235-276.
Oaklay, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts,& H. Cuychens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.214-235). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,30,755-769
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2004). The Role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik. De,6,91-11.
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2009). Introduction:on figuration in grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.1-43). John Benjamins B. V.
Pena, M. S.,& Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J. (2009). The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339-361). John Benjamins B. V.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how the mind creates language? New York: Harper-Collins Publishers Inc.
Quirk, R. et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman
Radden, G, & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther, & G.Radden (1999). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rohrer, T. (2006). Three dogmas of embodiment: Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In G. Kristiansen, M. R. Dirven, & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.). Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 119-146). Berlin& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rohsenow, J. (1978). Perfect Le: Aspect and relative tense in Mandarin Chinese. In L. Robert, Y. Li, & T. Tang (eds.), Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics, Student Book Co. (pp. 269-291). Taipei.
Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J. (1997). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 612, 161-178.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109-132). Berlin& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J., & Hernandez, L. P. (2001). Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321-357.
Saeed, J. I. (1982). The syntactic status of quantifiers in Somali. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 45(3), 525-545.
Schmitt, B., & Shi, Z. (1998). Language structure and categorization: A study of classifiers in consumer cognition, judgment, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 108-122.
Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (2008). Social ontology. Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress. London: King's College Publications.
Senft, G. (1996). Classificatory Particles in Kilivila. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Senft, G. (2007). Nominal Classification. In D. Geeraerts,& H. Cuychens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.676-696). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Seto, K-I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought:91-120. Amsterdan/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shi, Z. (1988). The present and past of the particle Le in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Shu, Ch. (2007). On the clitic status of the verbal classifier/mood marker ge in Chinese. Retreived from http://linguistics.kosmonaut.us/files/u32/cshu-ge.pdf.
Smith, C. (1983). A theory of a punctual choice. Language,59,479-501.
Smith, C. (1990). Event types in Mandarin. Linguistics,28,309-336.
Soh, H.,& Jenny K. Y. (2005). Perfective aspect and accomplishment situations in Mandarin Chinese. In H. Angeliek, Henriette de Swart & V. Henk (Eds). Perspectives on aspect (pp.199-216). Dordrecht:Springer.
Stefanowitsch, A.& Gries, S. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sybesma, R. (1997). Why Chinese verb-LE is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,6,215-261.
Sybesma, R. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, J. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In M. Chen,& O. Tzeng, Essays in honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang:Interdisciplinary studies on langauge and language Change (pp.479-494). Taiwan:Pyramid Publishing Co.
Tai, J.& Chou, Y. (1975). On the equivalent of 'Kill' in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,10 (2),48-52.
Tai, J.& L. Wang, (1990). A semantic study of the classifier tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,25,35-36.
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg, (Ed.), Universals of human language. Volume 4:Syntax (pp.625-649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, L. (1988 a). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science,12, 49-100.
Talmy, L. (1988 b). The relation of grammar to cognition. In R. O. Brygida (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, (pp.165-205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In M. G. Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson,& M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive lingusitics (pp. xi-xxi). Amsterdam& Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Thagard, P. (2008). Cognitive science. In N. Z. Edward (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford:Stanford University.
Traugott, E. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP of NP patterns. In A. Berg, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp.23-45). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
T'sou, B. K. (1976). The structure of nominal classifier system. In P. N. Genner et al (Eds.), Austroasiatic studies (pp.1215-1247). Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.
Ungerer, F.& Schimid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical review,66,143-160.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuychens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.48-81). Oxford/New York:Oxford University Press.
Wang, L. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Xiao, R. (2006). Using corpora to study classifiers in Mandarin Chinese, Stability and adaptation of classification systems in a cross-cultural perspective. Retrieved from http://www.docin.com/p-111283337.html.
Xiao, R.& McENERY, T. (2004). Aspect in Mandarin Chinese:a corpus-based study. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Yamamoto, K.& Keil, F. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese numeral classifiers: linkage between grammatical forms and conceptual categories. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,9,379-409.
Yang, R. (2001). Common nouns, classifiers and quantification in Chinese, Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
Yap er al. (2009). Aspectual asymmetries in the mental representation of events:role of lexical and grammatical aspect. Memory & Cognition,37 (5),587-595.
Zhang, H. (2007). Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. East Asian Linguist.16, 43-59.
Zhang, N. (2002). Counting and classifying eventualities in Chinese. Ms., ZAS Berlin.
蔡曙山(2009)。认知科学框架下心理学、逻辑学的交叉融合与发展,中国社会科学,2,25-38。
陈承泽(1982)。国文法草创。北京：商务印书馆。
陈平(1988)。论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构,中国语文,6,13-16。
陈平(1994)。试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则,中国语文,3,161-168。
陈望道(1980)。陈望道语文论集。上海：上海教育出版社。
陈颖(2003)。苏轼作品量词研究。巴蜀书社。
邓帮云(2004)。“盘”量词用法探究,乐山师范学院学报,7,74-76。
邓嫒媛、廖巧云(2011)。“V+个+VP”构式研究,西华师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2,67-72。
丁声树(1979)。现代汉语语法讲话。北京：商务印书馆。
范利、聂春梅(2001)。从认知语言学看名词临时作量词的语义演变规律。湖南第一师范学报,1,27-31。
方梅(1993)。宾语和动量成分的语序,中国语文,1,54-64。
方寅(2008)。也谈动量词的语义特征,安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),8,118-121。
方寅、张成福(2007)。动词与动量词搭配规律的认知分析,徐州师范大学学报2,60-64。
房玉清(1992)。实用汉语语法。北京：北京语言学院出版社。
冯凌宇(2008)。汉语人体词汇研究。北京：中国广播电视出版社。
高名凯(1986)。汉语语法论。北京：商务印书馆。
郭锐(1993)。汉语动词的过程结构。中国语文,6,410-419。
郭绍虞(1979)。汉语语法修辞新探。北京：商务印书馆。
何杰(2008)。现代汉语量词研究(增编版)。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
何乐士(2000)。古汉语语法研究论文集。北京：商务印书馆。
何思成(1981)。动词谓语后置成分辨析,成都大学学报(社会科学版),1,72-74。
胡孝斌(1997)。试论动词重叠“VV”式与动词“V一下”式的差异,汉语学习,2,18-21。
黄伯荣、廖序东(1991)。现代汉语。北京：高等教育出版社。
贾颖(1985)。关于时量补语的另外两种格式,语言教学与研究,1,23-29。
蒋宗霞(2006)。现代汉语动量词与动词的语义类别及其搭配关系,语文研究,4,27-29。
金桂桃(2005)。动量词“和”的产生、发展与演变,北方论丛,6,77-80。
金桂桃(2007a)。动量词“把”的产生、发展及相关问题,湖北教育学院学报,7,20-22。
金桂桃,(2007b)。动量词“次”非起源于“位次”义——与刘世儒先生商榷,9,47-49。
金颖(2006)。试论动量词“过”的产生、发展及其相关问题,古汉语研究,1,74-78。
金兆梓(1955)。国文法之研究。北京：中华书局。
李爱民(2001)《金瓶梅词话》专用动量词研究,山东教育学院学报,2,
李恒威、王小潞、唐孝威(2008)。表征、感受性和言语思维,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),5,26-33。
黎锦熙(1992)。新著国语文法。北京：商务印书馆。
黎锦熙、刘世儒(1978)。汉语语法教材。北京：商务印书馆。
李临定(1990)。现代汉语动词。中国社会科学出版社。
李宇明(1997)。主观量的成因,汉语学习,5,3-7。
李宇明(1998)。“一量VP”的语法、语义特点,语言教学与研究,3,102-113。
李宇明(1999)。“一V……数量”结构及其主观大量问题,汉语学习,4,1-5。
刘辉(2009)。现代汉语事件量词的语义和句法,博士论文,上海师范大学。
刘劫生(2000)。表示事件的“数+N”结构,世界汉语教学,1,35-40。
刘街生(2003)。现代汉语的动量词语义特征分析,语言研究,2,51-55。
刘街生、蔡闻哲(2004)。现代汉语动量词的借用,世界汉语教学,3,49-53。
刘勋宁(1988)。现代汉语词尾“了”的语法意义,中国语文,5,321-330。
刘世儒(1959)。汉语动量词的起源,中国语文,6,263-264.
刘世儒(1965)。魏晋南北朝量词研究。北京：中华书局。
刘月华(1983)。动量词“下”与动词重叠比较,汉语学习,6,1-8。
刘月华(2002)。实用现代汉语语法(增订版)。北京：商务印书馆。
陆丙甫(1998)。从语义、语用看语法形式的实质,中国语文,5,353-367。
卢烈红(2008)。动量短语据法功能补议,古汉语研究,4,46-53。
罗国强(2005)。动量词“遍”在早期文献中的分布,浙江树人大学学报,5,85-87。
吕叔湘(1979a)。汉语语法分析问题。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘(1979b)。中国文法要略。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘(1982)。中国文法要略。北京：商务印书馆。
吕冀平(2000)。汉语语法基础。北京：商务印书馆。
吕文华(1995)。略论一组含时量词语的同义格式。语法研究和探索(七)(pp.280-291)。北京：商务印书馆。
马建忠(1989)。马氏文通。北京：商务印书馆。
马庆株(1981)。时量宾语和动词的类,中国语文,2,86-90。
马庆株(1983)。现代汉语的双宾语构造。语言学论丛(十)(pp.166-196)。北京：商务印书馆。
马庆株(1984)。动词后面时量成分与名词的先后次序。语言学论丛(十三)(pp.40-56)。北京：商务印书馆。
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。
马庆株(1998)。汉语语义语法范畴问题。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
倪春元、徐乃为(1995)。数动量词组语法功能补说,南京师大学报(社会科学版),3,124-125。
牛保义(2005)英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析,外语与外语教学,6,1-6。
潘允中(1982)。汉语语法史概要。上海：上海古籍出版社。
秦洪武(2002)。汉语“动词+时量短语”结构的情状类型和界性分析,当代语言学,2,90-100。
邵敬敏(1996)。动量词的语义分析及其与动词的选择关系,中国语文,2,100-109。
邵敬敏(2007)。说“V一把”V的泛化与“一把”的词汇化,中国语文,1,14-19。
邵勤(2005)汉语动量词认知研究。硕士论文。华东师范大学。
沈家煊(1995)。“有界”与“无界”,中国语文,5,367-380。
石定栩(2006)。动词后数量短语的句法地位,汉语学报,1,51-58。
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)。表物体形状的量词的认知基础,语言教学与研究,1,34-41。
税昌锡(2005)。动词界性分类试说,暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),3,95-140。
唐钰明(1990)。古汉语动量表示法探源,古汉语研究,6,71-73。
田皓、甘智林(2003)。“V+数词(一)+动量词+N”的认知分析,衡阳师范学院学报(社会科学),2,90-94。
王力(1985)。中国现代语法。北京：商务印书馆。
王静(2001)。“个别性”与动词后量成分和名词的语序,语言教学与研究,1,48-54。
王绍新(1997)。从几个例词看唐代动量词的发展,古汉语研究,2,39-45。
王文斌(2008)。汉英“一量多物”现象的认知分析,外语教学与研究,4,257-261。
王文斌、毛智慧(2009)。汉英表量结构中异常搭配的隐喻建构机制,外国语文,6,48-53。
吴迪(1994)。是补语,还是定语?——兼谈动量词的语法功能,逻辑与语言学习,5,47。
相原茂(1984)。数量补语“一下”(沙野译),汉语学习,4,20-31。
向熹(1993)。简明汉语史。北京：高等教育出版社。
许艾明(2006)。中动构式的转喻阐释,外语与外语教学,9,14-17。
徐盛桓(2002)。语义数量特征与英语中动结构,外语教学与研究,6,436-480。
徐盛桓(2010)。心智哲学与认知语言学创新,北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),26(1),84-88。
徐之明(2000)。“觉”作动量用法及“睡觉”成词的年代,贵州教育学院学报(社会科学版),5,53-55。
杨伯峻、何乐士(1992)。古汉语语法及其发展。北京：语文出版社。
杨剑桥(2009)。汉语动量词不产生于先秦说,语言研究,4,22-26。
杨子、熊学亮(2009)。“动词+他、它+数量短语”结构的构式分析,汉语学习,6,26-32。
姚晓波(2005)。动量短语的语法功能,渤海大学学报,6,11-13。
叶桂郴、罗智丰(2007)。汉语动量词形成的原因,古汉语研究,3,81-85。
殷志平(1996)。试论“一V—V”的格式,中国语文,2,110-112。
殷志平(1999)。动词前成分“一”的探讨,中国语文,2,116-121。
翟英华(2001)。时量词探源,齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),7,82-84。
张伯江、方梅(1996)。汉语功能语法。江西：江西教育出版社。
张赪(2000)。现代汉语“V—V”式和“VV”式的来源,语言教学与研究,4,10-17。
张美兰(1996)。论《五灯会元》中同行动量词,南京师大学报(社会科学版),1,109-113。
张翼 (2011)。认知语法和构式语法在论元结构问题上的互补性,外国语,5,44-49。
张月池(1985)。关于谓语动词之后的数量词,思维与智慧,4,40-42。
张志公(1982)。现代汉语。北京：人民教育出版社。
赵彦春(2008)。语义合成原则的有效性——对Taylor(2002)证伪的证伪,外国语,5,20-30。
赵元任(1979)。汉语口语语法。北京：商务印书馆。
郑桦(2005a)。动量词的流变,西北第二民族学院学报,2,129-132。
郑桦(2005b)。动量词的来源,宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2,19-24。
周娟(2007)。现代汉语动词与动量词组合研究。博十论文,暨南大学。
周芍(2006)。名词量词组合的双向选择研究及其认知解释。博士论文,暨南大学。
周小兵(1997)。动宾组合带时量词语的句式,语言教学与研究,1,142-147。
周一民(2001)。北京口语语法(词法卷)。北京：语文出版社。
宗守云(2007)。从范畴化过程看量词“副”对名词性成分的选择,世界汉语教学,4,21-32。
朱德熙(1997)。语法讲义。北京：商务印书馆。
朱晓军(2006)。认知语言学视角下的汉语个体量词搭配,语言与翻译,4,30-32。
2“表示事物或动作的数量单位的词是量词……”
3《“暂拟汉语教学语法系统”简述》(1954年至1956年拟订)
4 "Innate language" to the mind activities is what "natural language" to linguistic activities (for a detailed discussion, see 3.2.3).
5《“暂拟汉语教学语法系统”简述》(1954年至1956年拟订)
6“表示事物或动作的数量单位的词是量词。量词有两种：计算实体事物的是物量词,计算行为动作的是动量词。”
7《马氏文通》
8“…他言数者,必有所附之名。数先于名者常也”
9《现代汉语量词用法词典》
10 CCL:Center for Chinese Linguistics PKU, a corpus built up by Peking University. (Web:http://ccl.pku.edu.cn)
11 personal communication
Adams, K. (1982). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer Nicobarese and Asian subfamilies of Austroasatic. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.
Adams, K. (1986). Numeral classifiers in Austroasiatic. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp.241-262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Adams, K. (1989). Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian Subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No.101. Canberra:Australian National University.
Adams, K.,& Conklin, N. (1973). Toward a theory of natural classification. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting (pp.1-10). Chicago Linguistic Society,
Aiknenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers:A typology of noun categorization devices. United States:Oxford University Press.
Allan, K. (1977). Classifiers. Language,53,281-311.
Allwood, J. (1999). Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. In J. Allwood & P. Gardenfors (Eds.), Cognitive semantics: meaning and cognition (pp.1-17). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Amazaki, O. (2006). A functional analysis of numeral quantifier constructions in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York.
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy,9,5-16.
Barcelona, A. (1997). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics. Atlantis,19(1),21-48.
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona, Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads:a cognitive perspective (pp.31-58). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update. In R. Dirven,& R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2009). Motivation of construction meaning and form:The roles of metonymy and inference. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.363-402). John Benjamins B. V.
Bates, E.,& MacWhinney. B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In L. Gleitman,& E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition:the state of the state of the art (pp.173-218). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Becker, A. L. (1975). A linguistic image of nature:The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics,165,109-121.
Berg, A.,& Diewald, G. (2008). Introduction:constructions and language change. In A. Berg,& G. Diewald (Eds.), Constnicitons and language change (pp.1-21). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Berlin, B. (1968). Tzeltal numeral classifiers:A study in ethnographic semantics. The Hague:Mouton.
Bernardez, E. (2005). Social cognition:variation, language, and culture in a cognitive linguistic typology. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics:Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 191-222). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Biq, Y. (2002). Classifier and construction:the interaction of grammatical categories and cognitive strategies. Language and Linguistics,3 (3),521-542.
Capell, A. (1940). The classification of languages in north and northwest Australia. Oceania,10,241-272.
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for "Allostructions" [OL]. In Doris Schonefeld (ed.), Constructions all over:Case studies and theoretical implications [OL]. Constructions Special Volume,1(7). Retrieve from http://www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/683.
Carroll, J. B.,& Casagrande. J. B. (1958). The function of language classifications in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), Readings in social psychology (pp.1-30). New York:Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Chao, Y. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Cheng, L. S.,& Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-Wan Tang, Yi-Ge Tang:Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing-Hua Journal of Chinese Studies,25(3),385-412.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of Semantic Parameter. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp.53-104). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Clark, E. V.,& Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language,55, 767-811.
Clausner, T. C.& Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image-schemas. Cognitive Linguistics,10,1-31.
Conrad, S. M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System,27(1),18.
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge/New York:Cambridge University Press.
Craig, C. (1986). Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Crane, T. (2001). Elements of mind:an introduction to the philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2000). Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics, and vice versa. In Janssen, T.,& G. Redeker (Eds.), Foundations, Scope and Methodology (pp.61-93). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar:Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Denny, J. P (1976). What are noun classifiers good for? Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,122-132.
Diez Velasco, O. I. (2000). A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some HAND metonymies in English and Spanish. Atlantis,22 (2),51-67.
Diez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Body part metonymies in action and perception frames:A cognitive analysis. EPOS,18,309-323.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar, Volume. Ⅰ:the structure of the clause. Dordrecht:Foris.
Dixon, R. M. (1968). Noun classes. Lingua,21,104-125.
Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection. Leiden:University of Leiden dissertation.
Downing, P. (1984). Japanese numeral classifiers:A syntactic, semantic and functional profile. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Downing, P. (1993). Pragmatic and semantic constraints on numeral quantifier position in Japanese. Linguistics,29,65-93.
Erbaugh, M. S. (1986). Taking stock:the development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp.399-436). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Fehri, F.,& Vinet, M-T. (2008). Verbal and nominal classes in Arabic and Chinese. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes,37,55-83.
Ferreira, M. (2005). Event quantification and plurality. Doctoral Dissertaion. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In B. Emmon,& T. H. Robert (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp.1-88). New York:Holt
Fillmore, C. J. (1970). Subjects, speakers and roles. Ohio Working Papers in Linguistics,4,31-63. Ohio:The Ohio State University.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler,& S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability & language behavior (pp.85-101). New York:Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS,Ⅱ,73-86.
Fodor, J. A. (1985). Fodor's guide to mental representations. Mind,94,76-100.
Friedrich, P. (1970). Shape in grammar. Language,46,379-407.
Gibbs Jr. R. W. (2005). Embodied action in thought and language. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics:Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.225-247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givon, T. (1984). Syntax:A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London:the University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work:The nature of generalization in language. New York:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.,& D. Casenhiser (2006). English construcions. In B. Aarts,& A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English lingusitics (pp.343-356). England: Blackwell Publishing
Goldberg, A.,& Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language,80 (3),532-568.
Greenberg, J. H. (1972). Numeral classifiers and substantial number:problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals,9,1-39.
Greenberg, J. H. (1975). Dynamic aspects of word order in the numeral classifier. In C. N. Li. (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp.27-45). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1977). Numeral classifiers and substantial number:problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In A. Makkai, V. Makkai,& L. Heilmann (Eds.), Linguistics at the crossroads (pp.276-300). Paova, Italy:Liviana Editrice.
Gries, S. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics:A study of particle placement. New York:Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Guthrie, M. (1948a). The classification of Bantu languages. Oxford:University Press.
Guthrie, M. (1948b). Gender, number and person in Bantu languages. BSOS,12, 847-56.
Haas, M. R. (1942). The use of numeral classifiers in Thai. Language,18,201-206.
Hla, P. (1965). Are-examination of Burmese clssifiers. Lingua,15,163-185.
Hofherr, P. C. (2010). Verbal plurality and event plurality. Retrieved from http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/2010_summerschool/pdf/course_ma terials/Cabredo201Op1V.pdf
Hopper, P. J.& Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language,60,703-752.
Hopper, P. J.,& Thompson, S. A. (1985). The iconicity of the universal categories 'noun' and 'verb'. In J. Haiman (Ed.). Iconicity in syntax (pp.151-183). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hsu. T. (2009). Emergence of Chinese sortal classifiers and the interactive model of human categorization. USTWPL,5,29-57.
Huang, C. (2006-2007). Argument realization of Chinese result and phase complements. UTA Working Papers in Linguistics.
Huang C.,& Ahrens, K. (2003). Individuals, kinds and events:classifier coercion of nouns. Language Science,25,353-373.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jenny Yi-chun, K.& M. D. Sera (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization: the role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. J East Asian Linguist, (18), 1-19.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Jones, R. (1970). Classifier constructions in southeast Asia. Journal of American Oriental Society,90 (1),1-12.
Kay, P.,& Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:The What's X doing Y? construction. Language,75,1-34.
Keiko, M. (1998). On the syntax of classifiers. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Maryland.
Kelson, J. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns:The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press
Kemmer, S.,& Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction. In S. Kemmer,& M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-based model of language (pp. vii-xxviii). Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Kim, J. (1995). Problems in the philosophy of mind. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Knowles, M.,& Moon, R. (2006). Introducing metaphor. London & New York: Routledge.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor:A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z.,& Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy:developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,9(1),37-77.
Kratzer, A. (2005). On the plurality of verbs. In J. Dolling & T. Heyde-Zybatow (Eds). Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (pp.269-299). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. Benthem,& B P. Boas, (Eds.). Semantics and contextual expression (pp.75-115). Dordrecht:Foris.
Krzysztof K. (2007). Perspectives on meonymy:Proceedings of the International Conference "Perspectives on Meonymy" held in Lodz, Poland. Europaischer Verlag der Wissenschaften:Peter Lang.
Kuo Y.,& Sera, M. D. (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization:the role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. East Asian Linguist,18,1-19.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. (2nd ed.). (pp.202-251). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G.& Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason:A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lam, S.& Vinet, M. T. (2005). Classifieurs nominaux et verbaux en chinois Mandarin, in Actes du Congres annuel de l'Association canadienne de linguistique (pp.1-11).
Landman, F. (1989). Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy,12,559-605.
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Dorchrcht:Kluwer.
Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Nouns and verbs. Language,63 (1),53-94.
Langacker, R. W. (1987b). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume Ⅰ:Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.). Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127-164). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.3-48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image and symbol. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume Ⅱ:Discriptive application. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics,4, 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars:cognitive, radical and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez,& M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101-159). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.).Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45-71). John Benjamins B. V.
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indians University Press.
Li, C.& Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese:A functional reference grammar. Berkeley:University of California at Berkeley Press.
Li, Y. H. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,8, 75-99.
Lu, B. (1998). Word Order Variation in Ta Shuo-Le Wo San-Ci Huaihua. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,33 (2).
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Introduction:Research issues in cognitive linguistics. In Luchjenbroers, J. Cognitive linguistics investigations:Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp.1-10). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Cognitive linguistics investigations:Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition:A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Lycan, W. G. (2000). Philosophy of language—A contemporary introduction (1st ed.). London:Routledge
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge & England: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol.1). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Marquez, M. G., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S.,& Spivey, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Methods in cognitive lingusitics. Amsterdam& Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martinez, N. A. (2000-2001). High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish: the case of the action for process, activity for event, and action for result metonymies. RESLA,14,23-36.
Matthewson, L. (2001). Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics,9,145-189.
Mazuka, R.,& Friedman. R. (2000). Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English:Is language the primary determinant in object classification? Journal of East Asian Linguistics,9(4),353-377.
McEnery T.& Xiao R. (2007). Quantifying constructions in English and Chinese:A corpus-based contrastive study [Z/OL]. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/19_Paper.pdf.
Meulen, A. (1984) Events, quantities and individuals. In Landman, F.,& F. Veltman (Eds.). Varieties of formal semantics (pp.259-280). Dordrecht:Foris.
Nakanishi, K. (2007a). Formal properties of measurement construction. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Nakanishi, K. (2007b). Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguist Philos,30,235-276.
Oaklay, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts,& H. Cuychens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.214-235). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,30,755-769
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2004). The Role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik. De,6,91-11.
Panther, K.& Thornburg, L. (2009). Introduction:on figuration in grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.1-43). John Benjamins B. V.
Pena, M. S.,& Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J. (2009). The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg,& A. Barcelona (Eds.). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339-361). John Benjamins B. V.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how the mind creates language? New York: Harper-Collins Publishers Inc.
Quirk, R. et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman
Radden, G, & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther, & G.Radden (1999). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rohrer, T. (2006). Three dogmas of embodiment: Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In G. Kristiansen, M. R. Dirven, & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.). Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 119-146). Berlin& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rohsenow, J. (1978). Perfect Le: Aspect and relative tense in Mandarin Chinese. In L. Robert, Y. Li, & T. Tang (eds.), Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics, Student Book Co. (pp. 269-291). Taipei.
Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J. (1997). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 612, 161-178.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109-132). Berlin& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza I. F. J., & Hernandez, L. P. (2001). Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321-357.
Saeed, J. I. (1982). The syntactic status of quantifiers in Somali. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 45(3), 525-545.
Schmitt, B., & Shi, Z. (1998). Language structure and categorization: A study of classifiers in consumer cognition, judgment, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 108-122.
Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (2008). Social ontology. Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress. London: King's College Publications.
Senft, G. (1996). Classificatory Particles in Kilivila. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Senft, G. (2007). Nominal Classification. In D. Geeraerts,& H. Cuychens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.676-696). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Seto, K-I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought:91-120. Amsterdan/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shi, Z. (1988). The present and past of the particle Le in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Shu, Ch. (2007). On the clitic status of the verbal classifier/mood marker ge in Chinese. Retreived from http://linguistics.kosmonaut.us/files/u32/cshu-ge.pdf.
Smith, C. (1983). A theory of a punctual choice. Language,59,479-501.
Smith, C. (1990). Event types in Mandarin. Linguistics,28,309-336.
Soh, H.,& Jenny K. Y. (2005). Perfective aspect and accomplishment situations in Mandarin Chinese. In H. Angeliek, Henriette de Swart & V. Henk (Eds). Perspectives on aspect (pp.199-216). Dordrecht:Springer.
Stefanowitsch, A.& Gries, S. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sybesma, R. (1997). Why Chinese verb-LE is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,6,215-261.
Sybesma, R. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, J. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In M. Chen,& O. Tzeng, Essays in honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang:Interdisciplinary studies on langauge and language Change (pp.479-494). Taiwan:Pyramid Publishing Co.
Tai, J.& Chou, Y. (1975). On the equivalent of 'Kill' in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,10 (2),48-52.
Tai, J.& L. Wang, (1990). A semantic study of the classifier tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,25,35-36.
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg, (Ed.), Universals of human language. Volume 4:Syntax (pp.625-649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, L. (1988 a). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science,12, 49-100.
Talmy, L. (1988 b). The relation of grammar to cognition. In R. O. Brygida (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, (pp.165-205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In M. G. Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson,& M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive lingusitics (pp. xi-xxi). Amsterdam& Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Thagard, P. (2008). Cognitive science. In N. Z. Edward (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford:Stanford University.
Traugott, E. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP of NP patterns. In A. Berg, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp.23-45). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
T'sou, B. K. (1976). The structure of nominal classifier system. In P. N. Genner et al (Eds.), Austroasiatic studies (pp.1215-1247). Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.
Ungerer, F.& Schimid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical review,66,143-160.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuychens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.48-81). Oxford/New York:Oxford University Press.
Wang, L. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Xiao, R. (2006). Using corpora to study classifiers in Mandarin Chinese, Stability and adaptation of classification systems in a cross-cultural perspective. Retrieved from http://www.docin.com/p-111283337.html.
Xiao, R.& McENERY, T. (2004). Aspect in Mandarin Chinese:a corpus-based study. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Yamamoto, K.& Keil, F. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese numeral classifiers: linkage between grammatical forms and conceptual categories. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,9,379-409.
Yang, R. (2001). Common nouns, classifiers and quantification in Chinese, Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
Yap er al. (2009). Aspectual asymmetries in the mental representation of events:role of lexical and grammatical aspect. Memory & Cognition,37 (5),587-595.
Zhang, H. (2007). Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. East Asian Linguist.16, 43-59.
Zhang, N. (2002). Counting and classifying eventualities in Chinese. Ms., ZAS Berlin.
蔡曙山(2009)。认知科学框架下心理学、逻辑学的交叉融合与发展,中国社会科学,2,25-38。
陈承泽(1982)。国文法草创。北京：商务印书馆。
陈平(1988)。论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构,中国语文,6,13-16。
陈平(1994)。试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则,中国语文,3,161-168。
陈望道(1980)。陈望道语文论集。上海：上海教育出版社。
陈颖(2003)。苏轼作品量词研究。巴蜀书社。
邓帮云(2004)。“盘”量词用法探究,乐山师范学院学报,7,74-76。
邓嫒媛、廖巧云(2011)。“V+个+VP”构式研究,西华师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2,67-72。
丁声树(1979)。现代汉语语法讲话。北京：商务印书馆。
范利、聂春梅(2001)。从认知语言学看名词临时作量词的语义演变规律。湖南第一师范学报,1,27-31。
方梅(1993)。宾语和动量成分的语序,中国语文,1,54-64。
方寅(2008)。也谈动量词的语义特征,安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),8,118-121。
方寅、张成福(2007)。动词与动量词搭配规律的认知分析,徐州师范大学学报2,60-64。
房玉清(1992)。实用汉语语法。北京：北京语言学院出版社。
冯凌宇(2008)。汉语人体词汇研究。北京：中国广播电视出版社。
高名凯(1986)。汉语语法论。北京：商务印书馆。
郭锐(1993)。汉语动词的过程结构。中国语文,6,410-419。
郭绍虞(1979)。汉语语法修辞新探。北京：商务印书馆。
何杰(2008)。现代汉语量词研究(增编版)。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
何乐士(2000)。古汉语语法研究论文集。北京：商务印书馆。
何思成(1981)。动词谓语后置成分辨析,成都大学学报(社会科学版),1,72-74。
胡孝斌(1997)。试论动词重叠“VV”式与动词“V一下”式的差异,汉语学习,2,18-21。
黄伯荣、廖序东(1991)。现代汉语。北京：高等教育出版社。
贾颖(1985)。关于时量补语的另外两种格式,语言教学与研究,1,23-29。
蒋宗霞(2006)。现代汉语动量词与动词的语义类别及其搭配关系,语文研究,4,27-29。
金桂桃(2005)。动量词“和”的产生、发展与演变,北方论丛,6,77-80。
金桂桃(2007a)。动量词“把”的产生、发展及相关问题,湖北教育学院学报,7,20-22。
金桂桃,(2007b)。动量词“次”非起源于“位次”义——与刘世儒先生商榷,9,47-49。
金颖(2006)。试论动量词“过”的产生、发展及其相关问题,古汉语研究,1,74-78。
金兆梓(1955)。国文法之研究。北京：中华书局。
李爱民(2001)《金瓶梅词话》专用动量词研究,山东教育学院学报,2,
李恒威、王小潞、唐孝威(2008)。表征、感受性和言语思维,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),5,26-33。
黎锦熙(1992)。新著国语文法。北京：商务印书馆。
黎锦熙、刘世儒(1978)。汉语语法教材。北京：商务印书馆。
李临定(1990)。现代汉语动词。中国社会科学出版社。
李宇明(1997)。主观量的成因,汉语学习,5,3-7。
李宇明(1998)。“一量VP”的语法、语义特点,语言教学与研究,3,102-113。
李宇明(1999)。“一V……数量”结构及其主观大量问题,汉语学习,4,1-5。
刘辉(2009)。现代汉语事件量词的语义和句法,博士论文,上海师范大学。
刘劫生(2000)。表示事件的“数+N”结构,世界汉语教学,1,35-40。
刘街生(2003)。现代汉语的动量词语义特征分析,语言研究,2,51-55。
刘街生、蔡闻哲(2004)。现代汉语动量词的借用,世界汉语教学,3,49-53。
刘勋宁(1988)。现代汉语词尾“了”的语法意义,中国语文,5,321-330。
刘世儒(1959)。汉语动量词的起源,中国语文,6,263-264.
刘世儒(1965)。魏晋南北朝量词研究。北京：中华书局。
刘月华(1983)。动量词“下”与动词重叠比较,汉语学习,6,1-8。
刘月华(2002)。实用现代汉语语法(增订版)。北京：商务印书馆。
陆丙甫(1998)。从语义、语用看语法形式的实质,中国语文,5,353-367。
卢烈红(2008)。动量短语据法功能补议,古汉语研究,4,46-53。
罗国强(2005)。动量词“遍”在早期文献中的分布,浙江树人大学学报,5,85-87。
吕叔湘(1979a)。汉语语法分析问题。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘(1979b)。中国文法要略。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘(1982)。中国文法要略。北京：商务印书馆。
吕冀平(2000)。汉语语法基础。北京：商务印书馆。
吕文华(1995)。略论一组含时量词语的同义格式。语法研究和探索(七)(pp.280-291)。北京：商务印书馆。
马建忠(1989)。马氏文通。北京：商务印书馆。
马庆株(1981)。时量宾语和动词的类,中国语文,2,86-90。
马庆株(1983)。现代汉语的双宾语构造。语言学论丛(十)(pp.166-196)。北京：商务印书馆。
马庆株(1984)。动词后面时量成分与名词的先后次序。语言学论丛(十三)(pp.40-56)。北京：商务印书馆。
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。
马庆株(1998)。汉语语义语法范畴问题。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
倪春元、徐乃为(1995)。数动量词组语法功能补说,南京师大学报(社会科学版),3,124-125。
牛保义(2005)英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析,外语与外语教学,6,1-6。
潘允中(1982)。汉语语法史概要。上海：上海古籍出版社。
秦洪武(2002)。汉语“动词+时量短语”结构的情状类型和界性分析,当代语言学,2,90-100。
邵敬敏(1996)。动量词的语义分析及其与动词的选择关系,中国语文,2,100-109。
邵敬敏(2007)。说“V一把”V的泛化与“一把”的词汇化,中国语文,1,14-19。
邵勤(2005)汉语动量词认知研究。硕士论文。华东师范大学。
沈家煊(1995)。“有界”与“无界”,中国语文,5,367-380。
石定栩(2006)。动词后数量短语的句法地位,汉语学报,1,51-58。
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)。表物体形状的量词的认知基础,语言教学与研究,1,34-41。
税昌锡(2005)。动词界性分类试说,暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),3,95-140。
唐钰明(1990)。古汉语动量表示法探源,古汉语研究,6,71-73。
田皓、甘智林(2003)。“V+数词(一)+动量词+N”的认知分析,衡阳师范学院学报(社会科学),2,90-94。
王力(1985)。中国现代语法。北京：商务印书馆。
王静(2001)。“个别性”与动词后量成分和名词的语序,语言教学与研究,1,48-54。
王绍新(1997)。从几个例词看唐代动量词的发展,古汉语研究,2,39-45。
王文斌(2008)。汉英“一量多物”现象的认知分析,外语教学与研究,4,257-261。
王文斌、毛智慧(2009)。汉英表量结构中异常搭配的隐喻建构机制,外国语文,6,48-53。
吴迪(1994)。是补语,还是定语?——兼谈动量词的语法功能,逻辑与语言学习,5,47。
相原茂(1984)。数量补语“一下”(沙野译),汉语学习,4,20-31。
向熹(1993)。简明汉语史。北京：高等教育出版社。
许艾明(2006)。中动构式的转喻阐释,外语与外语教学,9,14-17。
徐盛桓(2002)。语义数量特征与英语中动结构,外语教学与研究,6,436-480。
徐盛桓(2010)。心智哲学与认知语言学创新,北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),26(1),84-88。
徐之明(2000)。“觉”作动量用法及“睡觉”成词的年代,贵州教育学院学报(社会科学版),5,53-55。
杨伯峻、何乐士(1992)。古汉语语法及其发展。北京：语文出版社。
杨剑桥(2009)。汉语动量词不产生于先秦说,语言研究,4,22-26。
杨子、熊学亮(2009)。“动词+他、它+数量短语”结构的构式分析,汉语学习,6,26-32。
姚晓波(2005)。动量短语的语法功能,渤海大学学报,6,11-13。
叶桂郴、罗智丰(2007)。汉语动量词形成的原因,古汉语研究,3,81-85。
殷志平(1996)。试论“一V—V”的格式,中国语文,2,110-112。
殷志平(1999)。动词前成分“一”的探讨,中国语文,2,116-121。
翟英华(2001)。时量词探源,齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),7,82-84。
张伯江、方梅(1996)。汉语功能语法。江西：江西教育出版社。
张赪(2000)。现代汉语“V—V”式和“VV”式的来源,语言教学与研究,4,10-17。
张美兰(1996)。论《五灯会元》中同行动量词,南京师大学报(社会科学版),1,109-113。
张翼 (2011)。认知语法和构式语法在论元结构问题上的互补性,外国语,5,44-49。
张月池(1985)。关于谓语动词之后的数量词,思维与智慧,4,40-42。
张志公(1982)。现代汉语。北京：人民教育出版社。
赵彦春(2008)。语义合成原则的有效性——对Taylor(2002)证伪的证伪,外国语,5,20-30。
赵元任(1979)。汉语口语语法。北京：商务印书馆。
郑桦(2005a)。动量词的流变,西北第二民族学院学报,2,129-132。
郑桦(2005b)。动量词的来源,宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2,19-24。
周娟(2007)。现代汉语动词与动量词组合研究。博十论文,暨南大学。
周芍(2006)。名词量词组合的双向选择研究及其认知解释。博士论文,暨南大学。
周小兵(1997)。动宾组合带时量词语的句式,语言教学与研究,1,142-147。
周一民(2001)。北京口语语法(词法卷)。北京：语文出版社。
宗守云(2007)。从范畴化过程看量词“副”对名词性成分的选择,世界汉语教学,4,21-32。
朱德熙(1997)。语法讲义。北京：商务印书馆。
朱晓军(2006)。认知语言学视角下的汉语个体量词搭配,语言与翻译,4,30-32。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |