现代汉语运动事件表达模式研究
|
摘要
本文以Leonard Talmy认知语义学的框架事件理论及词汇化理论为理论基础,借鉴Slobin跨语言对比研究及收集语料的方法,对现代汉语运动事件的表达进行了系统的描写与细致的分析。文章以通过无字漫画书《青蛙,你在哪里?》进行诱导实验,所收集的表达运动事件的句子作为研究的主要语料来源。首先,本文通过语料分析,多角度地进一步证明现代汉语应该更接近“卫星框架语言”。然后分章节对组成运动事件的核心概念要素“主体”、“背景”、“路径”、“方式”、“原因”等在现代汉语中的语言表现形式及语用倾向进行了定量的描写和定性的分析。最后以本文的研究结论为基础,对韩国留学生习得运动事件的表达进行偏误分析。
本文共分九个部分。第一部分为引言,主要介绍本文的研究对象、选题缘起、研究意义、研究方法、研究现状、理论基础、研究取向、论文框架等。最后一部分为结语,对全文的研究进行了总结,归纳出了研究结论,指出了本文的创新和不足之处。主体部分共分七章。
第一章主要对Talmy的框架事件理论进行介绍,明确了“运动事件”的定义,对文章中一些主要术语,如“宏事件”、“框架事件”、“副事件”、“主体”、“背景”、“路径”、“方式”、“原因”等做了详细的说明。
第二章讨论了现代汉语运动事件词汇化的类型归属问题。Talmy根据不同的词汇化类型将世界上的语言分为“动词框架语言”和“卫星框架语言”。本文认为现代汉语应该属于“卫星框架语言”。文章首先论证了现代汉语的核心动词主要由副事件动词充当这一事实。接着介绍了其他研究者对现代汉语词汇化类型归属问题的观点,并一一对他们的观点进行了商榷。最后文章通过语料分析发现现代汉语路径信息描述的精细程度较高,“零背景句”的使用比例较低,这些都进一步证明现代汉语更接近“卫星框架语言”。
第三章介绍了现代汉语副事件动词的表达特点。现代汉语属于卫星框架语言,核心动词主要由副事件动词充当。副事件动词包括方式动词和原因动词。在现代汉语中只有主动运动事件才允许核心动词由路径动词充当。现代汉语的方式动词一般表达事件的方式,不表达主体的方式,方式动词也从不以卫星的形式出现。在表达致使运动事件时,句子中必须要有原因动词。
第四章对现代汉语的路径信息表达方式做了详细的描写。首先文章对“路径”和“路径动词”的概念作了界定与分析,然后以语料数据为支撑,对现代汉语中路径动词做核心动词的情况和路径动词做补语的情况作了分别的介绍与说明。发现“回、走”等路径动词更倾向于做核心动词,而“进、出、上、下、到、起、过、开”等路径动词更倾向于做补语。当路径动词做核心动词时,句子往往表现出非现实的情态特征。最后本章介绍了现代汉语中几个常用的用来表达路径信息的介词“从、在、向、朝、往”。
第五章对现代汉语中的两个指示路径动词“来、去”作补语的情况作了详细的讨论。首先介绍了“来、去”在主动运动事件和致使运动事件中的指示功能,“去”总是表示远离说话者的位置,而“来”的趋向意义却与说话双方及运动发生的时间都有关系。接着本章从结构、语篇和情状表达等几个角度分析了指示路径动词“来、去”做补语时的语用功能。“来、去”的使用是现代汉语句子结构的需要,现代汉语表达运动事件时,动词后倾向于使用“双成分”(非指示路径动词+宾语,或非指示路径动词+来／去)；“来”“去”具有语篇的衔接功能。当“来”“去”置于背景宾语后时具有“未完成”的时相特征。
第六章介绍了现代汉语运动事件中“主体”和“背景”的表达模式。“主体”和“背景”是一对相对的概念。“主体”可做主语,做介词宾语和动词的宾语。做动词宾语的“主体”的位置同指示路径动词“来、去”的功能有着密切的联系。当“主体”在“来、去”后时,“来、去”主要的功能一般都是指示,具有趋向动词的本义。当“主体”不在句末,在主动运动事件中后面只能接“来”,“来”具有“完成”的时体功能；在致使运动事件中,“主体”后接“来”、“去”都可以,并且具有“未完成”的时相特征。
在现代汉语表达运动事件的句子中,一个句子一般只有一个“背景”信息,并且多数是“终点”信息。同其他卫星框架语言相似,现代汉语“零背景”句的使用比例较低。背景信息可由先天的处所名词、可选处所名词和非处所名词表达,当背景信息做“上、下、进、出”的宾语时,不论是表示起点还是终点,背景信息都可以是非处所名词。“从、到、在”后更倾向于使用方位短语,“上、下、进、出、回、来、去”等后面更倾向于使用处所名词。
最后第七章本文对韩国留学生习得现代汉语运动事件表达所产生的偏误进行分析。文章共发现“表达致使运动事件时无原因动词”,“指示路径动词‘来、去’的添加偏误”,“路径动词与背景成分搭配不当”,“和方位短语有关的偏误”,“介词‘在’的误用”,“句中没有路径信息”,“重复使用路径动词或副事件动词”,“语序不准确”等八种韩国留学生的常见偏误。这些偏误都跟韩汉两种语言的类型差异有关。
Based on the theory of framing event and typology of lexicalization by Leonard Talmy, guided by Slobin's methodology of language comparison and data collecting, this dissertation gives a systemic description and analysis to the expression of motion event in Mandarin Chinese. We use Frog, where are you? a picture storybook without words to get the eliciting data about motion events, which are the main material we research on. First, by data analysis, this dissertation argues that Mandarin Chinese is a satellite-framed language in different perspectives, and then gives a quantitative description and qualitative analysis to the language expression and pragmatic style of the main factors of a motion event, including figure, ground, path, manner, cause, etc. At last, based on the previous conclusion, this dissertation ends with an error analysis on the motion event interlanguage from Korean Chinese learners.
This dissertation consists of nine parts. The first part is a general introduction to the study object, the origin of the topic, study purpose, methods of research, the state of this research, the relevant theory, the research orientation and the frame of the dissertation. The last part is a summary to the whole dissertation, including the conclusion, the innovation points and the limitations as well.
The main part of this dissertation consists of seven chapters, and the contents of each chapter are as follows:
Chapter one gives a general introduction to Talmy's theory of framing event, and the definition of motion event. This part gives particular explanation to the important terminologies in this dissertation, such as macro-event, framing event, co-event, figure, ground, path, manner, cause, etc.
Chafrter two highlights the issue of typology of lexicalization of Mandarin Chinese. Based on Talmy, the world's languages generally seem to divide into a two-category typology of verb-framed language and satellite-framed language, and this dissertation support that Mandarin Chinese is a satellite-framed language. In Chinese the main verb is always integrated with the co-event. This chapter reviews other researchers'controversial points of view on this issue. From our data, we find Chinese speakers tend to mention more path segments, and use less bare verb to express the motion events, which both further prove that Chinese is a satellite-framed language.
Chapter three introduces the characteristics of the co-event verbs in Mandarin Chinese. Chinese is a satellite-framed language, the main verb of which is always co-event verb, including manner verb and cause verb. Only in the self-agentive sentence the path verb has the chance to take the place of main verb. The manner verbs in Mandarin Chinese are always event-centered, but seldom figure-centered, and the manner verb can never take the role of satellite. The cause verbs are necessary in the sentences of agentive motion event.
Chapter four gives an explicit description to the expression of path in motion event. First, this chapter gives a clear definition to path and path verb, and then based on the data, the path verbs as main verbs and the path verbs as satellites are introduced separately. The result shows that path verbs Hui and Z6u tend to be the main verbs, while the path verbs Jin, Chu, Shang, Xia, Dao, QI, Guo and Kai, etc, tend to be the satellites. The sentences with path verbs as main verbs are often of irrealis modality. This chapter ends with an introduction to several prepositions, such as Cong, Zai, Xiang, Chdo and Wfing.
Chapter five is only to focus on the deictic path verbs Lai and Qu as complement. First, this chapter introduces the deictic function of Lai and Qu in agentive and non-agentive sentences. Qu has the notion of'move in a direction other than toward the speaker; while Lai has the notion of'move towards the participants of communication at the time of speaking or the motion takes/took place'. And then this chapter introduces other functions of Lai and Qu under the perspectives of sentence construction, discourse and situation type. Mandarin Chinese path verbs frequently take the form of a. bipartite verb where a nondeictic element combines with a deictic one or with a ground or figure object. Lai and Qu also have the function of cohesion in the discourse. When Lai or Qu follows a ground object, the sentence always is of a non-perfect situation.
Chapter six is about expression of figure and ground in Mandarin Chinese. Figure and ground is a pair of relative conception. Figure can be expressed at the positions of subject, preposition object, or verbal object. The position of the verbal object figure always decides the function of the deictic path verb Ldi and Qu. When the figure follows the deictic path verb, Ldi and Qu only have the function of deixis. When the figure precedes Ldi (Qu is not allowed) in a non-agentive sentence, Ldi seems like a perfect aspect marker, on the contrary, When the figure precedes Ldi or Qu in an agentive sentence, the sentence is always of a non-perfect situation type.
Most of the time, only one ground segment (often is Goal) is expressed in a motion event sentence in Mandarin Chinese. Similar with other satellite-framed languages, there are less minus-ground clauses in Mandarin Chinese. The ground information can be expressed by inherent place-noun, optional place-noun, or non-place-noun. The ground objects of Shang, Xia, Jin, Chu can be expressed by non-place-noun. The objects of C6ng, Dao, Zai tend to be locative phrases, while the objects of Shang, Xia, Jin, Chu, Ldi and Qu tend to be place-nouns.
At last, in chapter seven, this dissertation analyses the errors of Korean Chinese learners'motion event expression. Eight kinds of typical errors are found from our interlanguage data, which are the omission errors on cause verb in agentive clause, the additional errors on deictic path verbs Ldi and Qu, the errors on the matching between the path verbs and ground words, the errors on locative phrases, the errors on preposition Zai, the omission errors on path verbs, the additional errors on path verbs and co-event verbs, and the sequential errors, etc. All these errors are derived from the typological differences between the two languages of Chinese and Korean.
本文共分九个部分。第一部分为引言,主要介绍本文的研究对象、选题缘起、研究意义、研究方法、研究现状、理论基础、研究取向、论文框架等。最后一部分为结语,对全文的研究进行了总结,归纳出了研究结论,指出了本文的创新和不足之处。主体部分共分七章。
第一章主要对Talmy的框架事件理论进行介绍,明确了“运动事件”的定义,对文章中一些主要术语,如“宏事件”、“框架事件”、“副事件”、“主体”、“背景”、“路径”、“方式”、“原因”等做了详细的说明。
第二章讨论了现代汉语运动事件词汇化的类型归属问题。Talmy根据不同的词汇化类型将世界上的语言分为“动词框架语言”和“卫星框架语言”。本文认为现代汉语应该属于“卫星框架语言”。文章首先论证了现代汉语的核心动词主要由副事件动词充当这一事实。接着介绍了其他研究者对现代汉语词汇化类型归属问题的观点,并一一对他们的观点进行了商榷。最后文章通过语料分析发现现代汉语路径信息描述的精细程度较高,“零背景句”的使用比例较低,这些都进一步证明现代汉语更接近“卫星框架语言”。
第三章介绍了现代汉语副事件动词的表达特点。现代汉语属于卫星框架语言,核心动词主要由副事件动词充当。副事件动词包括方式动词和原因动词。在现代汉语中只有主动运动事件才允许核心动词由路径动词充当。现代汉语的方式动词一般表达事件的方式,不表达主体的方式,方式动词也从不以卫星的形式出现。在表达致使运动事件时,句子中必须要有原因动词。
第四章对现代汉语的路径信息表达方式做了详细的描写。首先文章对“路径”和“路径动词”的概念作了界定与分析,然后以语料数据为支撑,对现代汉语中路径动词做核心动词的情况和路径动词做补语的情况作了分别的介绍与说明。发现“回、走”等路径动词更倾向于做核心动词,而“进、出、上、下、到、起、过、开”等路径动词更倾向于做补语。当路径动词做核心动词时,句子往往表现出非现实的情态特征。最后本章介绍了现代汉语中几个常用的用来表达路径信息的介词“从、在、向、朝、往”。
第五章对现代汉语中的两个指示路径动词“来、去”作补语的情况作了详细的讨论。首先介绍了“来、去”在主动运动事件和致使运动事件中的指示功能,“去”总是表示远离说话者的位置,而“来”的趋向意义却与说话双方及运动发生的时间都有关系。接着本章从结构、语篇和情状表达等几个角度分析了指示路径动词“来、去”做补语时的语用功能。“来、去”的使用是现代汉语句子结构的需要,现代汉语表达运动事件时,动词后倾向于使用“双成分”(非指示路径动词+宾语,或非指示路径动词+来／去)；“来”“去”具有语篇的衔接功能。当“来”“去”置于背景宾语后时具有“未完成”的时相特征。
第六章介绍了现代汉语运动事件中“主体”和“背景”的表达模式。“主体”和“背景”是一对相对的概念。“主体”可做主语,做介词宾语和动词的宾语。做动词宾语的“主体”的位置同指示路径动词“来、去”的功能有着密切的联系。当“主体”在“来、去”后时,“来、去”主要的功能一般都是指示,具有趋向动词的本义。当“主体”不在句末,在主动运动事件中后面只能接“来”,“来”具有“完成”的时体功能；在致使运动事件中,“主体”后接“来”、“去”都可以,并且具有“未完成”的时相特征。
在现代汉语表达运动事件的句子中,一个句子一般只有一个“背景”信息,并且多数是“终点”信息。同其他卫星框架语言相似,现代汉语“零背景”句的使用比例较低。背景信息可由先天的处所名词、可选处所名词和非处所名词表达,当背景信息做“上、下、进、出”的宾语时,不论是表示起点还是终点,背景信息都可以是非处所名词。“从、到、在”后更倾向于使用方位短语,“上、下、进、出、回、来、去”等后面更倾向于使用处所名词。
最后第七章本文对韩国留学生习得现代汉语运动事件表达所产生的偏误进行分析。文章共发现“表达致使运动事件时无原因动词”,“指示路径动词‘来、去’的添加偏误”,“路径动词与背景成分搭配不当”,“和方位短语有关的偏误”,“介词‘在’的误用”,“句中没有路径信息”,“重复使用路径动词或副事件动词”,“语序不准确”等八种韩国留学生的常见偏误。这些偏误都跟韩汉两种语言的类型差异有关。
Based on the theory of framing event and typology of lexicalization by Leonard Talmy, guided by Slobin's methodology of language comparison and data collecting, this dissertation gives a systemic description and analysis to the expression of motion event in Mandarin Chinese. We use Frog, where are you? a picture storybook without words to get the eliciting data about motion events, which are the main material we research on. First, by data analysis, this dissertation argues that Mandarin Chinese is a satellite-framed language in different perspectives, and then gives a quantitative description and qualitative analysis to the language expression and pragmatic style of the main factors of a motion event, including figure, ground, path, manner, cause, etc. At last, based on the previous conclusion, this dissertation ends with an error analysis on the motion event interlanguage from Korean Chinese learners.
This dissertation consists of nine parts. The first part is a general introduction to the study object, the origin of the topic, study purpose, methods of research, the state of this research, the relevant theory, the research orientation and the frame of the dissertation. The last part is a summary to the whole dissertation, including the conclusion, the innovation points and the limitations as well.
The main part of this dissertation consists of seven chapters, and the contents of each chapter are as follows:
Chapter one gives a general introduction to Talmy's theory of framing event, and the definition of motion event. This part gives particular explanation to the important terminologies in this dissertation, such as macro-event, framing event, co-event, figure, ground, path, manner, cause, etc.
Chafrter two highlights the issue of typology of lexicalization of Mandarin Chinese. Based on Talmy, the world's languages generally seem to divide into a two-category typology of verb-framed language and satellite-framed language, and this dissertation support that Mandarin Chinese is a satellite-framed language. In Chinese the main verb is always integrated with the co-event. This chapter reviews other researchers'controversial points of view on this issue. From our data, we find Chinese speakers tend to mention more path segments, and use less bare verb to express the motion events, which both further prove that Chinese is a satellite-framed language.
Chapter three introduces the characteristics of the co-event verbs in Mandarin Chinese. Chinese is a satellite-framed language, the main verb of which is always co-event verb, including manner verb and cause verb. Only in the self-agentive sentence the path verb has the chance to take the place of main verb. The manner verbs in Mandarin Chinese are always event-centered, but seldom figure-centered, and the manner verb can never take the role of satellite. The cause verbs are necessary in the sentences of agentive motion event.
Chapter four gives an explicit description to the expression of path in motion event. First, this chapter gives a clear definition to path and path verb, and then based on the data, the path verbs as main verbs and the path verbs as satellites are introduced separately. The result shows that path verbs Hui and Z6u tend to be the main verbs, while the path verbs Jin, Chu, Shang, Xia, Dao, QI, Guo and Kai, etc, tend to be the satellites. The sentences with path verbs as main verbs are often of irrealis modality. This chapter ends with an introduction to several prepositions, such as Cong, Zai, Xiang, Chdo and Wfing.
Chapter five is only to focus on the deictic path verbs Lai and Qu as complement. First, this chapter introduces the deictic function of Lai and Qu in agentive and non-agentive sentences. Qu has the notion of'move in a direction other than toward the speaker; while Lai has the notion of'move towards the participants of communication at the time of speaking or the motion takes/took place'. And then this chapter introduces other functions of Lai and Qu under the perspectives of sentence construction, discourse and situation type. Mandarin Chinese path verbs frequently take the form of a. bipartite verb where a nondeictic element combines with a deictic one or with a ground or figure object. Lai and Qu also have the function of cohesion in the discourse. When Lai or Qu follows a ground object, the sentence always is of a non-perfect situation.
Chapter six is about expression of figure and ground in Mandarin Chinese. Figure and ground is a pair of relative conception. Figure can be expressed at the positions of subject, preposition object, or verbal object. The position of the verbal object figure always decides the function of the deictic path verb Ldi and Qu. When the figure follows the deictic path verb, Ldi and Qu only have the function of deixis. When the figure precedes Ldi (Qu is not allowed) in a non-agentive sentence, Ldi seems like a perfect aspect marker, on the contrary, When the figure precedes Ldi or Qu in an agentive sentence, the sentence is always of a non-perfect situation type.
Most of the time, only one ground segment (often is Goal) is expressed in a motion event sentence in Mandarin Chinese. Similar with other satellite-framed languages, there are less minus-ground clauses in Mandarin Chinese. The ground information can be expressed by inherent place-noun, optional place-noun, or non-place-noun. The ground objects of Shang, Xia, Jin, Chu can be expressed by non-place-noun. The objects of C6ng, Dao, Zai tend to be locative phrases, while the objects of Shang, Xia, Jin, Chu, Ldi and Qu tend to be place-nouns.
At last, in chapter seven, this dissertation analyses the errors of Korean Chinese learners'motion event expression. Eight kinds of typical errors are found from our interlanguage data, which are the omission errors on cause verb in agentive clause, the additional errors on deictic path verbs Ldi and Qu, the errors on the matching between the path verbs and ground words, the errors on locative phrases, the errors on preposition Zai, the omission errors on path verbs, the additional errors on path verbs and co-event verbs, and the sequential errors, etc. All these errors are derived from the typological differences between the two languages of Chinese and Korean.
引文
[1]崔希亮.汉语空间方位场景与论元的凸显.世界汉语教学,2001(4)：3-11
[2]崔希亮.汉语介词与位移事件：[博士学位论文].北京：北京大学,2004
[3]陈平.论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构.中国语文,1988(6)：401-421
[4]陈忠.复合趋向补语中“来／去”的句法分布顺序及其理据.当代语言学,2007(1)：39-43
[5]陈前瑞.现实相关性与复合趋向补语中的“来”.见：吴福祥、洪波主编.语法化与语法研究(一),北京：商务印书馆,2003：43-59
[6]程乐乐.日本留学生“把”字句习得情况考察与探析.云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版),2006(4)：41-46
[7]储泽祥.现代汉语名词的潜形态——关于名词后添加方位词情况的考察.古汉语研究,1995(S1)：48-64
[8]储泽祥.汉语空间方位短语历史演变的几个特点.古汉语研究,1996(1)：57-61
[9]储泽祥.名词的空间义及其对句法功能的影响.语言研究,1997(2)：34-48
[10]储泽祥.动词的空间适应性情况考察.中国语文,1998(4)：253-261
[11]储泽祥.现代汉语方所系统研究.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2003
[12]储泽祥.汉语“在+方位短语”里方位词的隐现机制.中国语文,2004 a(2)：112-122
[13]储泽祥.处所角色宾语的判定及其典型性问题.语言教学与研究,2004 b(6)：43-48
[14]储泽祥.“V往+O”的语义约束.江汉大学学报(人文社科版),2005(4)：62-66
[15]储泽祥.汉语处所词的词类地位及其类型学意义.中国语文,2006(3)：216,224
[16]储泽祥.汉语空间短语研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2010
[17]储泽祥,彭建平.处所角色宾语及其属性标记的隐现情况.语言研究,2006(4)：89-93
[18]戴浩一.时间顺序和汉语的语序.黄河译.国外语言学,1988(1)
[29]戴浩一.《功能学说与中文文法》导言.廖秋忠译.国外语言学,1990 a(3)：14-18
[20]戴浩一.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上).叶蜚声译.国外语言学,1990 b(4)：21-27
[21]戴浩一.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下).叶蜚声译.国外语言学,1991(1)：25-33
[22]董秀芳.论句法结构的词汇化.语言研究,2002a(3)：56,65
[23]董秀芳.词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展.四川民族出版社,2002b
[24]戴耀晶.现代汉语时体系统研究.杭州：浙江教育出版社,1997
[25]方经民.现代汉语空间方位参照系统认知研究：[博士学位论文].上海：上海师范大学,2002
[26]方经民.论汉语空间方位参照认知过程中的基本策略.中国语文,1999(1)：12-20
[27]方经民.地点域／方位域对立和汉语句法分析.语言科学,2004(6)：27-41
[28]方绪军.“V向……”和“V往……”.语言教学与研究,2004(2)：17-24
[39]傅雨贤,周小兵.现代汉语介词研究.广州：中山大学出版社,1997
[30]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”和句中名词的“有标性”.当代语言学,2001(4)：264-274
[31]古川裕.<起点>指向和<终点>指向的不对称及其认知解释.世界汉语教学,2002(3)：49-58
[32]郭春贵.合趋向补语与非处所宾语的位置问题补议.世界汉语教学,2003(3)：37-45
[33]郭姝慧.现代汉语致使句式研究：[博士学位论文].北京：北京语言大学,2004
[34]郭姝慧.“使”字句的成句条件.语文研究,2004(2)：24-27
[35]郭熙.“放到桌子上”“放在桌子上”“放桌子上”.中国语文,1986(1)：20-23
[36]黄玉花.韩国留学生汉语趋向补语习得特点及偏误分析,汉语学习,2007(4)：72-78
[37]贾钰.“来／去”作趋向补语时动词宾语的位置,世界汉语教学,1998(1)：40-45
[38]姜南秀.现代汉语趋向动词“来”“去”的语义分析,兰州教育学院学报,2010(1)：64-67
[39]阚哲华.汉语位移事件词汇化的语言类型探究.当代语言学,2010(2)：126-135
[40]柯理思.讨论一个非典型的述趋式：“走去”类组合.见：沈家煊等主编.语法化与语法研究(二).北京：商务印书馆,2005：53-68
[41]李勇忠,方新柱.理想化认知模型与转喻的语用功能.山东外语教学,2003(3)：53-57
[42]刘丹青.汉语中的框式介词.当代语言学,2002(4)：5-17
[43]刘丹青.语序类型学与介词理论.北京：商务印书馆,2003
[44]刘丹青.方所题元的若干类型学参项.见：汉语研究的类型学视角.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2005
[45]刘光明,储泽祥,陈青松.“单音动词+往”里“往”的语法化.古汉语研究,2006(2)：14-20
[46]刘培玉.介词“向”、“往”、“朝”的功能差异及解释.汉语学习,2007(3)：26-32
[47]刘岩.缩句练习中应注意的问题.语文建设,2012a(3)：38-40
[48]刘岩.汉语更接近“卫星框架语言”,中国社会科学报,2012b(366)
[49]刘岩.“例频”与“型频”,南开语言学刊,2012c(1)：120
[50]刘月华.关于趋向动词“来”、“去”的几个问题.语言教学与研究,1980(3)：36-44
[51]刘月华.表示状态的“起来”和“下去”比较.世界汉语教学,1987预刊(1)：14-16
[52]刘月华.趋向补语通释.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.1998
[53]刘月华.实用现代汉语语法(增订本),北京：商务印书馆.2001
[54]刘华文,李海清.汉英翻译中运动事件的再词汇化过程.外语教学与研究,2009(5)：379-385
[55]刘珣.对外汉语教育学引论.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2000
[56]陆俭明.“V来了”试析.中国语文,1989(3)：161-169
[57]陆俭明.动词后趋向补语和宾语的位置问题.世界汉语教学,2002(1)：5-17
[58]卢福波.对外汉语常用词语对比例释.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2000：496-498
[59]卢福波.对外汉语教学语法研究.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2004：118-133
[60]卢福波.汉语语法教学理论与方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2010
[61]卢福波.对外汉语教学实用语法(修订版).北京：北京语言大学出版社,2011
[62]吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词(增订本).北京：商务印书馆,1999
[63]马贝加.处所介词“向”的产生及发展.语文研究,1999(1)：43-47
[64]马洪海.汉语框架语义研究.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010
[65]马庆株.时量宾语和动词的类.中国语文,1981(2)：86-90
[66]马庆株.自主动词和非自主动词.中国语言学报,1988(3)
[67]马庆株.“V来／去”与现代汉语动词的主观范畴.语文研究,1997(3)：16-22,60
[68]马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
[69]梅瑟·迈尔.青蛙,你在哪里.贵阳：贵州出版集团公司,贵州人民出版社,2008.
[70]钱旭菁.日本留学生汉语趋向补语的习得顺序.世界汉语教学.1997(1)：94-101
[71]秦洪武,王克非.论元实现的词汇化解释：英汉语中的位移动词.当代语言学,2010(2)：115-125
[72]齐沪扬.空间位移中主观参照“来/去”的语用含义.世界汉语教学,1996(4)：54-63
[73]齐沪扬.现代汉语空间问题研究.上海：学林出版社,1998a
[74]齐沪扬.位移句中VP的方向价研究.见：袁毓林、郭锐主编.现代汉语配价语法研究(二).北京：北京大学出版社,1998b：119-143
[75]齐沪扬.空间位移中客观参照“P+N”的语用含义.中国语言学报,1999(9)：77-80
[76]齐沪扬.动词移动性功能的考察和动词的分类.见《中国语文》杂志社(编),语法研究和探索(十).北京：商务印书馆,2000：73-84
[77]杉村博文.试论趋向补语“·下”“下·来”“下·去”的引申用法.语言教学与研究,1983(4)：102-116
[78]沈家煊.不对称和标记论.南昌：江西教育出版社,1999
[79]沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”.外语教学与研究,2001(1)：268-375
[80]沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”.中国语文,2003(3)a：195-204
[81]沈家煊.现代汉语“动补结构”的类型学考察.世界汉语教学,2003(3)：17-23
[82]施家炜.国内汉语第二语言习得研究二十年.语言教学与研究,2006(1)：15-26
[83]史文磊.国外学界对词化类型学的讨论述略.解放军外国语学院学报,2011a(2)：12-17
[84]史文磊.汉语运动事件词化类型的历时转移.中国语文,2011b(6)：483-498
[85]宋文辉.现代汉语动结式的认知研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2007
[86]宋文辉.再论影响“在+处所”句法位置的因素.语言教学与研究,2007(4)：40-47
[87]宋秀今.现代汉语中的“从…到…”结构.山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1980(2)：83-87
[88]田臻.汉语静态存在构式对动作动词的语义制约：[博士学位论文].上海：上海外国语大学,2009
[89]王建勤.第二语言习得研究.北京：商务印书馆,2010
[90]王力.中国现代语法.北京：商务印书馆,1985
[91]王天翼,王寅.从“意义用法论”到“基于用法的模型”.外语教学,2010(6)：6-9,46
[92]王文斌.英语词化探析. 中国外语,2005(5)：64-68
[93]王小溪.为什么不能说“扔往地上”.汉语学习,2004(4)：76-80
[94]魏红.理想化认知模型与制约转喻思维的认知因素.现代语文,2007(11)：19-20
[95]温格瑞尔,施密特.认知语言学导论(第二版).彭利贞,许国萍,赵微译.上海：复旦大学出版社,2009
[96]温晓虹.汉语作为外语的习得研究——理论基础与课堂实践.北京：北京大学出版社,2008
[97]肖治野.“到”字结构中“从”的隐现之管见.河北师范大学学报,2003(6)：112-117
[98]肖奚强,也谈“来”和“去”.汉语学习,2003(2)：41-42
[99]肖奚强,周文华.外国学生汉语趋向补语句习得研究.汉语学习,2009(1)：70-81
[100]邢福义.“起去”的普、方、古检视.方言,2002(2)：97-107
[101]许余龙.对比语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1992
[102]严辰松.运动事件的词汇化模式——英汉比较研究.解放军外语学院学报,1998(6)：8-12
[103]严辰松.英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式.外国语,2005(1)：23-29
[104]杨德峰.英语母语学习者趋向补语的习得顺序——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.世界汉语教学,2003a(2)：52-65
[105]杨德峰.朝鲜语母语学习者趋向补语习情况分析——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.暨南大学华文学院学报,2003b(4)：20-31
[106]杨德峰.20世纪80年代中期以来的动趋式研究述评.语言教学与研究,2004a(2)：56-64
[107]杨德峰.日语母语学习者趋向补语习得情况分析——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.暨南大学华文学院学报,2004b(3)：23-35
[108]杨凯荣.论趋向补语和宾语的位置.汉语学报,2006(2)：55-61
[109]曾传禄.汉语位移事件参照及其格标.西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009a(1)：66-70,75
[110]曾传禄.汉语位移事件与句法表达.集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009b(3)：52-57
[111]赵金铭.现代汉语补语位置上的“在”和“到”及其弱化形式“·de".中国语言学报,1995(7)
[112]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001
[113]赵元任.汉语口语语法,吕叔湘节译本.北京：商务印书馆,1979
[114]张爱民.“从+处所词”-的语义功能.徐州师范学院学报,1982(4)：20-25
[115]张伯江.关于动趋式带宾语的几种语序.中国语文,1991a(3)：183-191
[116]张伯江.动趋式里宾语位置的制约因素.汉语学习,1991b(6)：4-8
[117]张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义.语言研究,2000(1)：28-40
[118]张伯江.被字句和把字句的对称与不对称.中国语文,2001(6)：519-524
[119]张发明.趋向动词“来”“去”新议.四平师范学院(哲学社会科学版),1981(3)：94-102
[120]周迟明.来和去.山东大学学报,1959(2)：23-48
[121]周领顺.汉语方式动词的移动状态层级.外语教学与研究,2011(6)：828-839
[122]周小兵.关于“从”字句的两个问题.汉语学习,1983(1)：34-40
[123]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982
[124]Aske, J. Path predicates in English and Spanish:A closer look. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,15,1989:1-14
[125]Bybee, J. and Suzanne Fleischman ed. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company.1995
[126]Bybee, J. L. From usage to grammar:the mind's response to repetition. Language, 82,2006a:711-733
[127]Bybee, J. L.& Eddington, D. Ausage-based approach to Spanish verbs of "becoming", Language,82,2006b:323-355
[128]Comrie, B. Aspect. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1976
[129]Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. University of Chicago Press.1981(中译本,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊译,华夏出版社,1989)
[130]Cadierno, T. Expressing motion events in a second language:A cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.2004:13-49
[131]Cadierno, T.& Ruiz, L. Motion events in Spanish L2 acquistion. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2006 (4):183-216
[132]Choi, Soonja, and Melissa Bowerman.1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean:The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41:83-121
[133]Corder, S. P. The Significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied linguistics,1967 (5):161-169
[134]Croft, William,2010, Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions
[135]Fillmore, Charles J. Deictic categories in the semantics of'come'. Foundations of Language,1966 (2):219-27
[136]Fillmore, Charles J. The case for case. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms(eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1968:1-88
[137]Fillmore, Charles J. Scenes-and-frames semantics, Linguistic Structures Processing. In Zampolli, Antonio (Ed.):Fundamental Studies in Computer Science,No.59, North Holland Publishing,1977:55-88
[138]Filhnore, C. J. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea.Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C].Seoul:Hanshin Publishing Co.1982
[139]Fleischman, S. Imperfective and Irrealis. In Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman ed.1995
[140]Gandour, Jack. On the Deictic Use of Verbs of Motion Come and Go in Thai. Anthropological Linguistics,1978, Vol.20, (9):381-394
[141]Givon, Talmy. Syntax:an introduction, Vol.1. John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001a
[142]Givon, Talmy. Syntax:an introduction, Vol.2. John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001b
[143]Giv6n. Talmy. Syntax and Semantics (12), ed. New York:Academic Press.1981
[144]Goldberg Adele. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, The University of Chicago Press.1995
[145]Goldberg Adele. E. Constructions at work—the nature of generalization in language. Oxford Univessity Press,2006
[146]Guo, J, et al. (ed). Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language:Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. NY, Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009
[147]Hopper, P. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. Syntax and Semantics 12, Givon ed. New York:Academic Press.1981:213-241
[148]Hopper, P.&Traugott, E. Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2003
[149]Hsiao, Hui-Chen Sabrina. Motion event descriptons and manner-of-motion verbs in Mandarin. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York.2009 Lado,R. Linguistics Across Cultures.MichiganrUniversity of Michigan Press.1957
[150]Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphor We Live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980
[151]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987
[152]Lamarre, Christine. The Linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese—with reference to Japanese, D. Xu (ed.), Space in Languages of China:Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, (?) Springer Science+Business Media B. V.2008:69-97
[153]LIU, Danqing,(刘丹青).2008. Syntax of space across Chinese dialects:conspiring and competing principles and factors, D. Xu (ed.), Space in Languages of China: Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. (?) pringer Science+Business MediaB. V.2008:39-67
[154]Langacker Ronald W. Cognitive Grammar as a Basic for Language Instruction, in Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C.,2008
[155]Narasimhan, Bhuvaneswari. Motion Events and the Lexicon:The Case of Hindi. Lingua 113,2003:123-160
[156]Odlin, Terence. Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions, in Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C.,2008
[157]Robinson, Peter & Ellis. Nick C., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Taylor & Francis e-Libaray,2008
[158]Rod Ellis. Second language acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai foreign language education press.2000
[159]Selinker, L. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10,1969:209-31
[160]Slobin, D. I.,& Hoiting, N. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,1994 (20): 487-505
[161]Slobin, Dan. I. Two ways to travel:Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson, eds. Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1996a:195-219
[162]Slobin, Dan. I. From " thought and language" to "thinking for speaking". In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson, eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1996b
[163]Slobin, Dan. I. Mind, code, and text[A]. In J.Bybee, J.Haiman,& S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type:Dedicated to T. Givon Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1997
[164]Slobin, Dan. I. Verbalized events:A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and Deterninism. Evidence for Linguistic Relativity, ed. by Susanne Niemeier and Rene Dirven. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.2000:107-138
[165]Slobin. Dan. I. Language and thought online:Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. Language in mind:Advances in the study of language and thought, ed. by D. Gentner NS S. Goldin-Meadow. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.2003:57-192
[166]Slobin, Dan. I. The many ways to search for a frog:Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events [A]. In S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2004
[167]Slobin, Dan I. What makes manner of motion salient:Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition[C]//M. Hickmann & S. Robert. Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. Philadelphia:John Benjamins,2006: 59-81
[168]Tai, James H. Y(戴浩一).Cognitive relativism:Resultative construction in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2003.4.2:301-316
[169]Talmy, Leonard. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.1972
[170]Talmy, Leonard. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, Calif:Berkeley Linguistic Society.1975
[171]Talmy, Leonard. Lexicalization patterns:Semantic structure in lexical forms[A]. In T. Shopen. ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description Ⅲ:Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1985
[172]Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. volume Ⅰ:Concept structuring systems, i-viii. Cambridge:MIT Press.2000a:1-565
[173]Talmy. Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, volume Ⅱ:Typology and process in concept structuring, i-viii. Cambridge.-MIT Press.2000b:1-495
[174]Talmy, Leonard. Main verb properties and equipollent framing[C]//J. Guo, et al. Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language:Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2009:389-401
[175]Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language:A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2010
[176]Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001
[177]Vendler, Zeno. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, Vol.66, No.2.1957: 143-160
[178]Zlatev, J. i&Yangklang, P. A third way to travel:The place of Thai and serial verb languages in motion event typology. In S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative:Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2003
[2]崔希亮.汉语介词与位移事件：[博士学位论文].北京：北京大学,2004
[3]陈平.论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构.中国语文,1988(6)：401-421
[4]陈忠.复合趋向补语中“来／去”的句法分布顺序及其理据.当代语言学,2007(1)：39-43
[5]陈前瑞.现实相关性与复合趋向补语中的“来”.见：吴福祥、洪波主编.语法化与语法研究(一),北京：商务印书馆,2003：43-59
[6]程乐乐.日本留学生“把”字句习得情况考察与探析.云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版),2006(4)：41-46
[7]储泽祥.现代汉语名词的潜形态——关于名词后添加方位词情况的考察.古汉语研究,1995(S1)：48-64
[8]储泽祥.汉语空间方位短语历史演变的几个特点.古汉语研究,1996(1)：57-61
[9]储泽祥.名词的空间义及其对句法功能的影响.语言研究,1997(2)：34-48
[10]储泽祥.动词的空间适应性情况考察.中国语文,1998(4)：253-261
[11]储泽祥.现代汉语方所系统研究.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2003
[12]储泽祥.汉语“在+方位短语”里方位词的隐现机制.中国语文,2004 a(2)：112-122
[13]储泽祥.处所角色宾语的判定及其典型性问题.语言教学与研究,2004 b(6)：43-48
[14]储泽祥.“V往+O”的语义约束.江汉大学学报(人文社科版),2005(4)：62-66
[15]储泽祥.汉语处所词的词类地位及其类型学意义.中国语文,2006(3)：216,224
[16]储泽祥.汉语空间短语研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2010
[17]储泽祥,彭建平.处所角色宾语及其属性标记的隐现情况.语言研究,2006(4)：89-93
[18]戴浩一.时间顺序和汉语的语序.黄河译.国外语言学,1988(1)
[29]戴浩一.《功能学说与中文文法》导言.廖秋忠译.国外语言学,1990 a(3)：14-18
[20]戴浩一.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上).叶蜚声译.国外语言学,1990 b(4)：21-27
[21]戴浩一.以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下).叶蜚声译.国外语言学,1991(1)：25-33
[22]董秀芳.论句法结构的词汇化.语言研究,2002a(3)：56,65
[23]董秀芳.词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展.四川民族出版社,2002b
[24]戴耀晶.现代汉语时体系统研究.杭州：浙江教育出版社,1997
[25]方经民.现代汉语空间方位参照系统认知研究：[博士学位论文].上海：上海师范大学,2002
[26]方经民.论汉语空间方位参照认知过程中的基本策略.中国语文,1999(1)：12-20
[27]方经民.地点域／方位域对立和汉语句法分析.语言科学,2004(6)：27-41
[28]方绪军.“V向……”和“V往……”.语言教学与研究,2004(2)：17-24
[39]傅雨贤,周小兵.现代汉语介词研究.广州：中山大学出版社,1997
[30]古川裕.外界事物的“显著性”和句中名词的“有标性”.当代语言学,2001(4)：264-274
[31]古川裕.<起点>指向和<终点>指向的不对称及其认知解释.世界汉语教学,2002(3)：49-58
[32]郭春贵.合趋向补语与非处所宾语的位置问题补议.世界汉语教学,2003(3)：37-45
[33]郭姝慧.现代汉语致使句式研究：[博士学位论文].北京：北京语言大学,2004
[34]郭姝慧.“使”字句的成句条件.语文研究,2004(2)：24-27
[35]郭熙.“放到桌子上”“放在桌子上”“放桌子上”.中国语文,1986(1)：20-23
[36]黄玉花.韩国留学生汉语趋向补语习得特点及偏误分析,汉语学习,2007(4)：72-78
[37]贾钰.“来／去”作趋向补语时动词宾语的位置,世界汉语教学,1998(1)：40-45
[38]姜南秀.现代汉语趋向动词“来”“去”的语义分析,兰州教育学院学报,2010(1)：64-67
[39]阚哲华.汉语位移事件词汇化的语言类型探究.当代语言学,2010(2)：126-135
[40]柯理思.讨论一个非典型的述趋式：“走去”类组合.见：沈家煊等主编.语法化与语法研究(二).北京：商务印书馆,2005：53-68
[41]李勇忠,方新柱.理想化认知模型与转喻的语用功能.山东外语教学,2003(3)：53-57
[42]刘丹青.汉语中的框式介词.当代语言学,2002(4)：5-17
[43]刘丹青.语序类型学与介词理论.北京：商务印书馆,2003
[44]刘丹青.方所题元的若干类型学参项.见：汉语研究的类型学视角.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2005
[45]刘光明,储泽祥,陈青松.“单音动词+往”里“往”的语法化.古汉语研究,2006(2)：14-20
[46]刘培玉.介词“向”、“往”、“朝”的功能差异及解释.汉语学习,2007(3)：26-32
[47]刘岩.缩句练习中应注意的问题.语文建设,2012a(3)：38-40
[48]刘岩.汉语更接近“卫星框架语言”,中国社会科学报,2012b(366)
[49]刘岩.“例频”与“型频”,南开语言学刊,2012c(1)：120
[50]刘月华.关于趋向动词“来”、“去”的几个问题.语言教学与研究,1980(3)：36-44
[51]刘月华.表示状态的“起来”和“下去”比较.世界汉语教学,1987预刊(1)：14-16
[52]刘月华.趋向补语通释.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.1998
[53]刘月华.实用现代汉语语法(增订本),北京：商务印书馆.2001
[54]刘华文,李海清.汉英翻译中运动事件的再词汇化过程.外语教学与研究,2009(5)：379-385
[55]刘珣.对外汉语教育学引论.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2000
[56]陆俭明.“V来了”试析.中国语文,1989(3)：161-169
[57]陆俭明.动词后趋向补语和宾语的位置问题.世界汉语教学,2002(1)：5-17
[58]卢福波.对外汉语常用词语对比例释.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2000：496-498
[59]卢福波.对外汉语教学语法研究.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2004：118-133
[60]卢福波.汉语语法教学理论与方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2010
[61]卢福波.对外汉语教学实用语法(修订版).北京：北京语言大学出版社,2011
[62]吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词(增订本).北京：商务印书馆,1999
[63]马贝加.处所介词“向”的产生及发展.语文研究,1999(1)：43-47
[64]马洪海.汉语框架语义研究.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010
[65]马庆株.时量宾语和动词的类.中国语文,1981(2)：86-90
[66]马庆株.自主动词和非自主动词.中国语言学报,1988(3)
[67]马庆株.“V来／去”与现代汉语动词的主观范畴.语文研究,1997(3)：16-22,60
[68]马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
[69]梅瑟·迈尔.青蛙,你在哪里.贵阳：贵州出版集团公司,贵州人民出版社,2008.
[70]钱旭菁.日本留学生汉语趋向补语的习得顺序.世界汉语教学.1997(1)：94-101
[71]秦洪武,王克非.论元实现的词汇化解释：英汉语中的位移动词.当代语言学,2010(2)：115-125
[72]齐沪扬.空间位移中主观参照“来/去”的语用含义.世界汉语教学,1996(4)：54-63
[73]齐沪扬.现代汉语空间问题研究.上海：学林出版社,1998a
[74]齐沪扬.位移句中VP的方向价研究.见：袁毓林、郭锐主编.现代汉语配价语法研究(二).北京：北京大学出版社,1998b：119-143
[75]齐沪扬.空间位移中客观参照“P+N”的语用含义.中国语言学报,1999(9)：77-80
[76]齐沪扬.动词移动性功能的考察和动词的分类.见《中国语文》杂志社(编),语法研究和探索(十).北京：商务印书馆,2000：73-84
[77]杉村博文.试论趋向补语“·下”“下·来”“下·去”的引申用法.语言教学与研究,1983(4)：102-116
[78]沈家煊.不对称和标记论.南昌：江西教育出版社,1999
[79]沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”.外语教学与研究,2001(1)：268-375
[80]沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”.中国语文,2003(3)a：195-204
[81]沈家煊.现代汉语“动补结构”的类型学考察.世界汉语教学,2003(3)：17-23
[82]施家炜.国内汉语第二语言习得研究二十年.语言教学与研究,2006(1)：15-26
[83]史文磊.国外学界对词化类型学的讨论述略.解放军外国语学院学报,2011a(2)：12-17
[84]史文磊.汉语运动事件词化类型的历时转移.中国语文,2011b(6)：483-498
[85]宋文辉.现代汉语动结式的认知研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2007
[86]宋文辉.再论影响“在+处所”句法位置的因素.语言教学与研究,2007(4)：40-47
[87]宋秀今.现代汉语中的“从…到…”结构.山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1980(2)：83-87
[88]田臻.汉语静态存在构式对动作动词的语义制约：[博士学位论文].上海：上海外国语大学,2009
[89]王建勤.第二语言习得研究.北京：商务印书馆,2010
[90]王力.中国现代语法.北京：商务印书馆,1985
[91]王天翼,王寅.从“意义用法论”到“基于用法的模型”.外语教学,2010(6)：6-9,46
[92]王文斌.英语词化探析. 中国外语,2005(5)：64-68
[93]王小溪.为什么不能说“扔往地上”.汉语学习,2004(4)：76-80
[94]魏红.理想化认知模型与制约转喻思维的认知因素.现代语文,2007(11)：19-20
[95]温格瑞尔,施密特.认知语言学导论(第二版).彭利贞,许国萍,赵微译.上海：复旦大学出版社,2009
[96]温晓虹.汉语作为外语的习得研究——理论基础与课堂实践.北京：北京大学出版社,2008
[97]肖治野.“到”字结构中“从”的隐现之管见.河北师范大学学报,2003(6)：112-117
[98]肖奚强,也谈“来”和“去”.汉语学习,2003(2)：41-42
[99]肖奚强,周文华.外国学生汉语趋向补语句习得研究.汉语学习,2009(1)：70-81
[100]邢福义.“起去”的普、方、古检视.方言,2002(2)：97-107
[101]许余龙.对比语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1992
[102]严辰松.运动事件的词汇化模式——英汉比较研究.解放军外语学院学报,1998(6)：8-12
[103]严辰松.英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式.外国语,2005(1)：23-29
[104]杨德峰.英语母语学习者趋向补语的习得顺序——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.世界汉语教学,2003a(2)：52-65
[105]杨德峰.朝鲜语母语学习者趋向补语习情况分析——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.暨南大学华文学院学报,2003b(4)：20-31
[106]杨德峰.20世纪80年代中期以来的动趋式研究述评.语言教学与研究,2004a(2)：56-64
[107]杨德峰.日语母语学习者趋向补语习得情况分析——基于汉语中介语语料库的研究.暨南大学华文学院学报,2004b(3)：23-35
[108]杨凯荣.论趋向补语和宾语的位置.汉语学报,2006(2)：55-61
[109]曾传禄.汉语位移事件参照及其格标.西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009a(1)：66-70,75
[110]曾传禄.汉语位移事件与句法表达.集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009b(3)：52-57
[111]赵金铭.现代汉语补语位置上的“在”和“到”及其弱化形式“·de".中国语言学报,1995(7)
[112]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001
[113]赵元任.汉语口语语法,吕叔湘节译本.北京：商务印书馆,1979
[114]张爱民.“从+处所词”-的语义功能.徐州师范学院学报,1982(4)：20-25
[115]张伯江.关于动趋式带宾语的几种语序.中国语文,1991a(3)：183-191
[116]张伯江.动趋式里宾语位置的制约因素.汉语学习,1991b(6)：4-8
[117]张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义.语言研究,2000(1)：28-40
[118]张伯江.被字句和把字句的对称与不对称.中国语文,2001(6)：519-524
[119]张发明.趋向动词“来”“去”新议.四平师范学院(哲学社会科学版),1981(3)：94-102
[120]周迟明.来和去.山东大学学报,1959(2)：23-48
[121]周领顺.汉语方式动词的移动状态层级.外语教学与研究,2011(6)：828-839
[122]周小兵.关于“从”字句的两个问题.汉语学习,1983(1)：34-40
[123]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982
[124]Aske, J. Path predicates in English and Spanish:A closer look. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,15,1989:1-14
[125]Bybee, J. and Suzanne Fleischman ed. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company.1995
[126]Bybee, J. L. From usage to grammar:the mind's response to repetition. Language, 82,2006a:711-733
[127]Bybee, J. L.& Eddington, D. Ausage-based approach to Spanish verbs of "becoming", Language,82,2006b:323-355
[128]Comrie, B. Aspect. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1976
[129]Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. University of Chicago Press.1981(中译本,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊译,华夏出版社,1989)
[130]Cadierno, T. Expressing motion events in a second language:A cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard& S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.2004:13-49
[131]Cadierno, T.& Ruiz, L. Motion events in Spanish L2 acquistion. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2006 (4):183-216
[132]Choi, Soonja, and Melissa Bowerman.1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean:The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41:83-121
[133]Corder, S. P. The Significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied linguistics,1967 (5):161-169
[134]Croft, William,2010, Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions
[135]Fillmore, Charles J. Deictic categories in the semantics of'come'. Foundations of Language,1966 (2):219-27
[136]Fillmore, Charles J. The case for case. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms(eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1968:1-88
[137]Fillmore, Charles J. Scenes-and-frames semantics, Linguistic Structures Processing. In Zampolli, Antonio (Ed.):Fundamental Studies in Computer Science,No.59, North Holland Publishing,1977:55-88
[138]Filhnore, C. J. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea.Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C].Seoul:Hanshin Publishing Co.1982
[139]Fleischman, S. Imperfective and Irrealis. In Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman ed.1995
[140]Gandour, Jack. On the Deictic Use of Verbs of Motion Come and Go in Thai. Anthropological Linguistics,1978, Vol.20, (9):381-394
[141]Givon, Talmy. Syntax:an introduction, Vol.1. John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001a
[142]Givon, Talmy. Syntax:an introduction, Vol.2. John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001b
[143]Giv6n. Talmy. Syntax and Semantics (12), ed. New York:Academic Press.1981
[144]Goldberg Adele. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, The University of Chicago Press.1995
[145]Goldberg Adele. E. Constructions at work—the nature of generalization in language. Oxford Univessity Press,2006
[146]Guo, J, et al. (ed). Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language:Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. NY, Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009
[147]Hopper, P. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. Syntax and Semantics 12, Givon ed. New York:Academic Press.1981:213-241
[148]Hopper, P.&Traugott, E. Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2003
[149]Hsiao, Hui-Chen Sabrina. Motion event descriptons and manner-of-motion verbs in Mandarin. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York.2009 Lado,R. Linguistics Across Cultures.MichiganrUniversity of Michigan Press.1957
[150]Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphor We Live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980
[151]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987
[152]Lamarre, Christine. The Linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese—with reference to Japanese, D. Xu (ed.), Space in Languages of China:Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, (?) Springer Science+Business Media B. V.2008:69-97
[153]LIU, Danqing,(刘丹青).2008. Syntax of space across Chinese dialects:conspiring and competing principles and factors, D. Xu (ed.), Space in Languages of China: Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. (?) pringer Science+Business MediaB. V.2008:39-67
[154]Langacker Ronald W. Cognitive Grammar as a Basic for Language Instruction, in Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C.,2008
[155]Narasimhan, Bhuvaneswari. Motion Events and the Lexicon:The Case of Hindi. Lingua 113,2003:123-160
[156]Odlin, Terence. Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions, in Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C.,2008
[157]Robinson, Peter & Ellis. Nick C., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Taylor & Francis e-Libaray,2008
[158]Rod Ellis. Second language acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai foreign language education press.2000
[159]Selinker, L. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10,1969:209-31
[160]Slobin, D. I.,& Hoiting, N. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,1994 (20): 487-505
[161]Slobin, Dan. I. Two ways to travel:Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson, eds. Grammatical Constructions:Their Form and Meaning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1996a:195-219
[162]Slobin, Dan. I. From " thought and language" to "thinking for speaking". In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson, eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1996b
[163]Slobin, Dan. I. Mind, code, and text[A]. In J.Bybee, J.Haiman,& S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type:Dedicated to T. Givon Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1997
[164]Slobin, Dan. I. Verbalized events:A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and Deterninism. Evidence for Linguistic Relativity, ed. by Susanne Niemeier and Rene Dirven. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.2000:107-138
[165]Slobin. Dan. I. Language and thought online:Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. Language in mind:Advances in the study of language and thought, ed. by D. Gentner NS S. Goldin-Meadow. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.2003:57-192
[166]Slobin, Dan. I. The many ways to search for a frog:Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events [A]. In S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2004
[167]Slobin, Dan I. What makes manner of motion salient:Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition[C]//M. Hickmann & S. Robert. Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. Philadelphia:John Benjamins,2006: 59-81
[168]Tai, James H. Y(戴浩一).Cognitive relativism:Resultative construction in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2003.4.2:301-316
[169]Talmy, Leonard. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.1972
[170]Talmy, Leonard. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, Calif:Berkeley Linguistic Society.1975
[171]Talmy, Leonard. Lexicalization patterns:Semantic structure in lexical forms[A]. In T. Shopen. ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description Ⅲ:Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1985
[172]Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. volume Ⅰ:Concept structuring systems, i-viii. Cambridge:MIT Press.2000a:1-565
[173]Talmy. Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, volume Ⅱ:Typology and process in concept structuring, i-viii. Cambridge.-MIT Press.2000b:1-495
[174]Talmy, Leonard. Main verb properties and equipollent framing[C]//J. Guo, et al. Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language:Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2009:389-401
[175]Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language:A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2010
[176]Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001
[177]Vendler, Zeno. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, Vol.66, No.2.1957: 143-160
[178]Zlatev, J. i&Yangklang, P. A third way to travel:The place of Thai and serial verb languages in motion event typology. In S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative:Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2003
© 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 |