Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:26:51.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2022

Bingjun Yang
Bingjun Yang
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Non-Finiteness
A Process-Relation Perspective
 , pp. 199 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, Bas. 2011. Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Chalker, Sylvia & Weiner, Edmund, eds. 2014. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2007. ‘Three Domains of Finiteness: A Minimalist Perspective’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 23–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2006. ‘Serial Verb Constructions in a Typological Perspective’. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Aikhenvald, A. & Dixon, R. M. W., pp. 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith. 1971. ‘A Note on the Source of There in Existential Sentences’. Foundations of Language 7(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Raghavachari. 2014. ‘Separating Tense and Finiteness: Anchoring in Dravidian’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 2002. ‘Syntax and Morphology Are Different: Commentary on Jonas’. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, edited by Lightfoot, D., pp. 271–5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. ‘English Reduced Auxiliaries Really Are Simple Clitics’. Lingue e Linguaggio 3(1): 169–86.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2006. ‘Serial Verb Constructions’. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 11, edited by Brown, K., Anderson, A., Bauer, L., Berns, M., Hirst, G. & Miller, J., pp. 260–4. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1985. ‘Orthography and Linguistic Theory’. Language 61: 28–72.Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bache, Carl. 2008. English Tense and Aspect in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Banks, David. 2005. ‘On the Historical Origins of Nominalized Process in Scientific Text’. English for Specific Purposes 24(3): 347–57.Google Scholar
Banks, David. 2017. A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: A Simple Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Basang, Zhuoma. 1990. ‘Batang dongci quzhe xingtai de fenxihua’ [An analysis of verbal inflections in Batang]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 12(5): 76–9.Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 1990. ‘Finding Translation Equivalents: An Application of Grammatical Metaphor’. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics, edited by Karlgren, H., pp. 13–18. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Sagart, Laurent. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin & Chang, Nancy. 2005. ‘Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding’. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions, edited by Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., pp. 147–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1995. ‘Verb Serialization and Converbs: Differences and Similarities’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by König, E. & Haspelmath, M., pp. 137–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1998. ‘Adverbiality: The View from the Far East’. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Van der Auwera, J. & Baoill, D. P. Ó., pp. 641–812. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2001. ‘Finite vs. Non Finite Languages’. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, edited by Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., pp. 1400–13. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2007. ‘Categories That Make Finiteness: Discreteness from a Functional Perspective and Some of Its Repercussions’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 115–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blom, Elma, Krikhaar, Evelien & Wijnen, Frank. 2001. ‘Nonfinite Clauses in Dutch and English Child Language: An Experimental Approach’. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, edited by Do, H.-J. A., Dominguez, L. & Johansen, A., pp. 133–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1938. The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. ‘Entailment and the Meaning of Structures’. Glossa 2(2): 119–27.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Burridge, Kate. 2010. Introducing English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert. 1996. Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bradley, Henry. 1913. On the Relations between Spoken and Written Language with Special Reference to English. London: Proceedings of the British Academy.Google Scholar
Branner, David Prager. 2002. ‘Common Chinese and Early Chinese Morphology’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(4): 706–21.Google Scholar
Branner, David Prager. 2003. ‘On Early Chinese Morphology and Its Intellectual History: Winner of the Barwis–Holliday Award for 2001’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 13(1): 45–76.Google Scholar
Brown, Goold. 1851. The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: William Wood & Company.Google Scholar
Brown, Keith & Miller, Jim. 2016. A Critical Account of English Syntax: Grammar, Meaning, Text. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. ‘Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions Are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012’. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1): 123–50.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 2011 [1934]. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bullokar, William. 1906 [1586]. ‘Brief Grammar for English’. In Geschichte Der Fabeldichtung in England Bis Zu John Gay (1726), edited by Plessow, M., pp. 333–73. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Burton, Samuel Holroyd. 1984. Mastering English Grammar. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Dahl, Östen. 1989. ‘The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World’. Studies in Language 13(1): 51–103.Google Scholar
Byrnes, Heidi. 2009. ‘Emergent L2 German Writing Ability in a Curricular Context: A Longitudinal Study of Grammatical Metaphor’. Linguistics and Education 20(1): 50–66.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice. 2006. A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Callaway, Morgan. 1901. The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Camacho, José A. 2013. Null Subjects. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Aimee L. & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. ‘The Acquisition of English Dative Constructions’. Applied Psycholinguistics 22(2): 253–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capell, Arthur. 1965. ‘A Typology of Concept Domination’. Lingua 15: 451–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1967. Quantifiers as Higher Verbs. IBM Boston Programming Technical Report BPC 5.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael, McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caselli, Tommaso & Sprugnoli, Rachele. 2017. ‘It-TimeML and the Ita-TimeBank: Language Specific Adaptations for Temporal Annotation’. In Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, edited by Ide, N. & Pustejovsky, J., pp. 969–88. Dordrech: Springer.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. ‘Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature’. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, edited by Tannen, D., pp. 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine & Zarina, Estrada-Fernández. 2016. ‘Finiteness and Nominalization: An Overview’. In Finiteness and Nominalization, edited by Chamoreau, C. & Estrada-Fernández, Z., pp. 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 2011 [1968]. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & de Reuse, Willem J.. 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Chen, Jianmin. 1960. ‘Lun jianyushi he yixie youguan juzi fenxifa de wen’ [Pivotal constructions and issues related to sentence analysis]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 9(3): 101–6.Google Scholar
Chen, Jianmin. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu juxinglun [Sentence patterns in modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. ‘Conditions on Transformations’. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., pp. 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J., pp. 89–155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christie, Frances & Martin, James Robert. 2007. Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. ‘When Nouns Surface as Verbs’. Language 55(4): 767–811.Google Scholar
Classen, Ernest. 1919. Outlines of the History of the English Language. London: Macmillan and Co. Limited.Google Scholar
Cobbett, William & Ayres, Alfred. 1884. The English Grammar of William Cobbett. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
Colombi, M. Cecilia. 2006. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: Academic Language Development in Latino Students of Spanish’. In Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, edited by Byrnes, H., pp. 147–63. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. ‘Polite Plurals and Predicate Agreement’. Language 51(2): 406–18.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976a. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976b. ‘The Syntax of Causative Constructions: Cross-Language Similarities and Divergences’. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, edited by Shibatani, M., pp. 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria, eds. 1993. Causatives and Transitivity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Conrad, Bent. 1982. Referring and Non-Referring Phrases: A Study in the Use of the Gerund and the Infinitive. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2016. ‘Finiteness and Pseudofiniteness’. In Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages, edited by Eide, K. M., pp. 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2007. ‘Deconstructing Categories: Finiteness in a Functional-Typological Perspective’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 91–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. ‘Patterns of Variation in Existential Constructions’. Isogloss 1(1): 33–65.Google Scholar
Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional Change: The Case of Malay Constituent Order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1947. English Grammar. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dai, Qingxia. 1981. ‘Zaiwayu shidong fanchou de xingtai bianhua’ [Morphological changes in causatives in Zaiwa language]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 3(4): 36–41.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1964. ‘A Three-Level Approach to Syntax’. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–40.Google Scholar
Daniel, Canon. 1891. The Grammar History and Derivation of the English Language. London: National Society’s Depository.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Clifton, Nottingham: Department of English and Media Studies, Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
Derewianka, Beverly. 1995. ‘Language Development in the Transition from Childhood to Adolescence: The Role of Grammatical Metaphor’. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.Google Scholar
Derewianka, Beverly. 2003. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in the Transition to Adolescence’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 185–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Devrim, Devo Y. 2015. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: What Do We Mean? What Exactly Are We Researching?’ Functional Linguistics 2(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1981. Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and Derived Constructions, edited by Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine & Lasser, Ingeborg. 2002. ‘Finite Options: How L1 and L2 Learners Cope with the Acquisition of Finiteness’. Linguistics 40(4): 647–51.Google Scholar
Ding, Shengshu, Lü, Shuxiang, Li, Rong, et al. 1999. Xiandai Hanyu yufa jianghua [Lectures on modern Chinese grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1989. ‘A Cognitive Perspective on Complementation’. In Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest, edited by Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y. & Seuren, P., pp. 113–39. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dirven, René & Fried, Vilém, eds. 1987. Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela. 2015. English Grammar: A University Course. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drieman, G. H. J. 1962. ‘Differences between Written and Spoken Language: An Exploratory Study’. Acta Psychologica 20: 78–100.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2003. ‘The Gerund and the To-Infinitive as Subject’. Journal of English Linguistics 31(4): 324–52.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. The English Gerund-Participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-Finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2016. ‘Introduction’. In Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages, edited by Eide, K. M., pp. 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience & Arkhipov, Alexandre. 2009. ‘Introduction’. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, edited by Epps, P. & Arkhipov, A., pp. 1–9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1994. ‘Functional Categories and the Chinese Infl’. Linguistics 32: 191–212.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2010. ‘Semantic Typology’. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Song, J. J., pp. 504–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Ramm, Wiebke. 2008. ‘Editors’ Introduction: Subordination and Coordination from Different Perspectives’. In Subordination versus Coordination in Sentence and Text: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Ramm, W., pp. 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fan, Fanglian. 1963. ‘Cunzaiju’ [Existential sentence]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 12(5): 386–95.Google Scholar
Fan, Xiao. 1991. Hanyu de duanyu [Phrases in Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Fang, Huaihai & Zhao, Xiaomin. 2008. ‘Cong mingcixing xiaoju kan Hanyu de “budingshi” jiegou’ [On the infinitive structure in Chinese from the perspective of nominal clauses]. Hanyu Xuebao [Journal of the Chinese language] 5(2): 23–30.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin. forthcoming. Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Catherine. 1988. ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone’. Language 64: 501–38.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964a. ‘From Comparative Word-Order Studies’. Brno Studies in English 4: 111–28.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964b. ‘On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis’. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–80.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, John Rupert. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, John Rupert. 1968. ‘Descriptive Linguistics and the Study of English’. In Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959, edited by Palmer, F. R., pp. 96–113. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja & Osswald, Rainer. 2016. ‘Introduction.’ In Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics Interface, edited by Fleischhauer, J., Latrouite, A. & Osswald, R., pp. 7–14. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise. 2012. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise. 2015. ‘The Noun, Grammar and Context’. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(2–3): 178–202.Google Scholar
Forbes, John. 1848. The Principles of Gaelic Grammar. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1993. ‘Negated Adjunct Phrases Are Really Partitive’. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1(2): 208–305.Google Scholar
Freeborn, Dennis. 1992. From Old English to Standard English: A Course Book in Language Variations across Time. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fu, Dawei. 1980. ‘Cong juzi de neibu jiegou kan suowei “jianyushi”’ [The so-called ‘pivotal construction’ from the perspective sentential inner structure]. Journal of Liaoning University 10(4): 90–6.Google Scholar
Gao, Zengxia. 2006. Xiandai Hanyu liandongshi de yufahua shijiao [Serial verb constructions in modern Chinese from the perspective of grammaticalization]. Beijing: China Archives Press.Google Scholar
Gasde, Horst-Dieter & Paul, Waltraud. 1996. ‘Functional Categories, Topic Prominence, and Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese’. Linguistics 34: 263–94.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger. 2012. ‘The Typology of Clause Linkage: Status Quo, Challenges, Prospects’. In Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, edited by Gast, V. & Diessel, H., pp. 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
George, Leland & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1981. ‘Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish’. In Binding and Filtering, edited by Heny, F., pp. 105–27. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Georgiou, Renos, Papatzalas, Christos & Terzi, Arhonto. 2016. ‘A Non-Finite Period in Early Cypriot Greek’. Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory 6(1): 52–62.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. ‘Iconicity, Isomorphism, and Non-Arbitrary Coding in Syntax’. In Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, edited by Haiman, J., pp. 187–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glare, P. G. W., Souter, A., Wyllie, J. M., et al. 1968. Oxford Latin Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. ‘Coordinating Conjunctions in English’. Language 41(2): 260–93.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. ‘Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerald. 2002. An Introduction to English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements’. In Universals of Language, edited by Greenberg, J. H., pp. 73–113. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gretsch, Petra & Perdue, Clive. 2007. ‘Finiteness in First and Second Language Acquisition’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 432–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guo, Jie. 2011. ‘Xiandai Hanyu xiaoju xiandingxing shuaijian yanjiu’ [A study on the attenuation of finiteness of clauses in Mandarin Chinese]. PhD thesis, Renmin University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar
Guo, Jie. 2013. ‘Guowai xianding yu feixianding yanjiu de yanhua yu fazhan’ [Overseas studies on finiteness and non-finiteness: Evolution and development]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary linguistics] 15(3): 336–48.Google Scholar
Gwilliams, Laura & Fontaine, Lise. 2015. ‘Indeterminacy in Process Type Classification’. Functional Linguistics 2(8): 1–19.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A., eds. 1988a. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988b. ‘Introduction’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1956. ‘Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese’. Transactions of the Philosophical Society 55(1): 177–224.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1961. ‘Categories of the Theory of Grammar’. Word 17(3): 241–92.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1966a. ‘Some Notes on “Deep” Grammar’. Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 57–67.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1966b. ‘The Concept of Rank: A Reply’. Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 110–18.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967a. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part I’. Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 37–82.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967b. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part II’. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1968. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part III’. Journal of Linguistics 4(2): 179–215.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1969. ‘Options and Functions in the English Clause’. Brno Studies in English 8: 81–8.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. ‘Language Structure and Language Function’. In New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by Lyons, J., pp. 140–65. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975. ‘Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language’. In Foundations of Language Development: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by Lenneberg, E. & Lenneberg, E. H., pp. 239–65. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1976. Halliday: System and Function in Language, edited by Kress, G.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1984. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in English and Chinese’. In New Papers on Chinese Language Use, edited by Hong, B., pp. 9–18. Canberra: Contemporary China Centre, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2002a [1992]. ‘Some Lexicogrammatical Features of the Zero Population Growth Text’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 2: Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse, edited by Webster, J., pp. 197–227. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. [2002b [1979]. ‘Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure and Their Determination by Different Semantic Functions’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 1: On Grammar, edited by Webster, J., pp. 196–218. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2002c [1987]. ‘Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 1: On Grammar, edited by Webster, J., pp. 323–51. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2003a [1966]. ‘Grammar, Society and the Noun’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 3: On Language and Linguistics, edited by Webster, J.. pp. 50–73. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2003b [1995]. The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 3: On Language and Linguistics, edited by Webster, J.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004a [1995]. ‘Language and the Reshaping of Human Experience’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 7–23. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004b [1998]. ‘Language and Knowledge: The “Unpacking” of Text’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 24–48. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004c [1998]. ‘Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as Technical Knowledge’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 49–101. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004d [1999]. ‘The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: The Framing of the English Clause’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 102–34. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2005 [1993]. ‘Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 6: Computational and Quantitative Studies, edited by Webster, J., pp. 130–56. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1998. ‘Three Models of Signification’. In Integrational Linguistics: A First Reader, edited by Harris, R. & Wolf, G., pp. 113–25. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Harrison, Matthew. 1861. Rise, Progress, and Present Structure of the English Language. Philadelphia: E. C. and J. Biddle and Co.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. ‘The Converb as a Cross-Linguistically Valid Category’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Haspelmath, M. & König, E., pp. 1–56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. ‘Coordinating Constructions: An Overview’. In Coordinating Constructions, edited by Haspelmath, M., pp. 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 2004. ‘The Syntax of Existential Constructions’. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 393–430.Google Scholar
He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun. 2014. ‘A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(3): 345–60.Google Scholar
He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun. 2015. Absolute Clauses in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study. London: Springer.Google Scholar
He, Wei & Wang, Minchen. 2018. ‘Yinghanyu “xiaoju” yufa diwei zai shenshi’ [Revisiting the grammatical status of ‘clause’ in English and Chinese]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 50(2): 195–204.Google Scholar
He, Wei & Zhang, Ruijie. 2017. ‘Hanyu shiyiju de gongneng shijiao yanjiu’ [The Chinese causative clause: A functional approach]. Waiyu Xuekan [Foreign language research] 40(6): 53–9.Google Scholar
He, Yuanjian. 2017. ‘Hanyu shifou cunzai hechengxing (huo fenxixing) daoxiang de leixing zhuanbian?’ [How real is the syntheticity-to-analyticity shift from archaic to contemporary Chinese?]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language teaching and linguistic studies] 39(4): 1–15.Google Scholar
He, Yuanjian & Wang, Lingling. 2002. ‘Lun Hanyu shiyiju’ [The syntax of causatives in Chinese]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 23(4): 1–9.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2010. ‘Functional Discourse Grammar’. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by Heine, B. & Narrog, H., pp. 367–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Her, One-Soon. 2008. Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Kemler Nelson, Deborah G., Jusczyk, Peter W., et al. 1987. ‘Clauses Are Perceptual Units for Young Infants’. Cognition 26(3): 269–86.Google Scholar
Hita, Jorge Arús. 2018. ‘A Contrastive Description of Projection in English and Spanish across Ranks: From the Clause Nexus to the Group’. In Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Sellami-Baklouti, A. & Fontaine, L., pp. 223–45. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina. 1998. ‘Aspects of Root Infinitives’. Lingua 106: 81–112.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Nikanne, Urpo, Oraviita, Irmeli, Reime, Hannu & Trosterud, Trond. 1993. ‘The Structure of INFL and the Finite Clause in Finnish’. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, edited by Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U., pp. 177–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornby, Albert Sydney. 1975 [1954]. Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.Google Scholar
House, Homer C. & Harman, Susan Emolyn. 1950 [1931]. Descriptive English Grammar. 2nd ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Hu, Jianhua. 1997. ‘Yinghan kongyulei de fenlei fenbu yu suozhi bijiao yanjiu’ [A comparative study of the classification, distribution and reference of empty categories in Chinese and English]. Waiguoyu [Foreign languages] 20(5): 38–44.Google Scholar
Hu, Jianhua, Pan, Haihua & Liejiong, Xu. 2001. ‘Is There a Finite vs. Nonfinite Distinction in Chinese?’ Linguistics 39(6): 1117–48.Google Scholar
Hu, Xuhui. 2010. ‘Chinese Existential Constructions: At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface’. PhD thesis, Nanjing University.Google Scholar
Hu, Xuhui. 2018. Encoding Events: Functional Structure and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hu, Yushu & Fan, Xiao, eds. 1995. Dongci yanjiu [On verbs]. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Bufan. 1981. ‘Guzangyu dongci de Xingtai’ [The morphology of Old Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 3(3): 1–13.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1982. ‘Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar’. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1983. ‘A Note on the Binding Theory’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 554–61.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1984. ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1987. ‘Existential Sentences in Chinese and (in)Definiteness’. In The Representation of (In)Definiteness, edited by Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., pp. 226–53. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1989. ‘Pro-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory’. In The Null Subject Parameter, edited by Jaeggli, O. A. & Safir, K., pp. 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1991. ‘Remarks on the Status of the Null Object’. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, edited by Freidin, R., pp. 56–76. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1999. ‘Chinese Passives in Comparative Perspective’. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies 29: 423–509.Google Scholar
Huang, Guowen. 1996. ‘Experiential Enhanced Theme in English’. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, edited by Berry, M., Fawcett, R. P., Butler, C. & Huang, G., pp. 65–112. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Huang, Guowen. 2010. ‘A Systemic Functional Analysis of “John Is Easy/Eager to Please”’. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(4): 261–7.Google Scholar
Huang, Guowen & Zhang, Meifang. 2003. ‘The Unit of Translation’. Translation Quarterly 30(4): 75–93.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1989. ‘Anaphora in Chinese: Toward a Pragmatic Analysis’. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1991a. ‘A Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora’. Journal of Linguistics 27: 301–35.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1991b. ‘A Pragmatic Analysis of Control in Chinese’. In Levels of Linguistic Adaptation, edited by Verschueren, J., pp. 113–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1992a. ‘Against Chomsky’s Typology of Empty Categories’. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1992b. ‘Hanyu de kongfanchou’ [Empty categories in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 31(5): 383–93.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Z. Nick. 2015. ‘On Syntactic Tense in Mandarin Chinese’. In Proceedings of the 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Tao, H., Lee, Y., Su, D., et al. pp. 406–23. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. ‘Some Observations on Tense and Deixis in English’. Language 45(4): 777–806.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988a. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988b. ‘Review: Constituency, Multi-functionality and Grammaticalization in Halliday’s Functional Grammar’. Journal of Linguistics 24(1): 137–74.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1971. English Complex Sentences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 2011. ‘Eventivity Effects in Early Grammar: The Case of Non-Finite Verbs’. First Language 32(1–2): 239–69.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. ‘Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics’. In Style in Language, edited by Sebeok, T. A., pp. 350–449. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jarkey, Nerida. 2015. Serial Verbs in White Hmong. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. ‘Typological Shift and Change in Complex Sentence Structure’. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, edited by Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. & Mufwene, S. S., pp. 136–49. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 1: Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Jiang, Di. 1992. ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xianxiang de tongji fenxi’ [A statistical analysis of verbal inflections in Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 14(4): 47–50.Google Scholar
Jin, Peng. 1983. ‘Zangyu dongci biaosanshi de quzhe xingtai jianhua’ [Two ways of simplifying the inflections for representing three tenses in Tibet]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in language and linguistics] 3(1): 169–78.Google Scholar
Jin, Peng. 1988. ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xingtai xiang zhanzhe xingtai de zhuanbian’ [Change from inflectional forms to affixational forms in Tibetan verbs]. Zhongguo Zangxue [Chinese Tibetology] 1(1): 131–9.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana & Smallwood, Carolyn. 1999. ‘On (Non-)Finiteness in Inuktitut’. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 159–70.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel, ed. 1785. A Dictionary of the English Language with a History of the Language and an English Grammar. 6th ed. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena J. & Sumbatova, Nina. 2007. ‘Clause Structure and Verbal Forms in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 183–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1920. ‘Le proto-Chinois, langue flexionnelle’. Journal Asiatique 11: 205–32.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Verhagen, Arie. 1994. ‘The Grammar of Causatives and the Conceptual Structure of Events’. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2): 115–56.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. & Quirk, Randolph. 1971. ‘Controlled Activation of Latent Contrast’. Language 47(3): 548–72.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej, Fedorova, Olga & Nikolaeva, Julia. 2015. ‘Multimodal Discourse: In Search of Units’. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, edited by Airenti, G., Bara, B. G. & Sandini, G., pp. 662–7. Aachen: RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej & Molchanova, Natalia. 2013. ‘Channels of Multimodal Communication: Relative Contributions to Discourse Understanding’. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2704–9. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Davies, Mark A.. 2019. ‘The INTO-CAUSATIVE Construction in English: A Construction-Based Perspective’. English Language and Linguistics 20(1): 55–83.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. ‘Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax’. Foundations of Language 4(1): 30–57.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. ‘Fact’. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, edited by Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A., pp. 345–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2006. ‘On Finiteness’. In Semantics in Acquisition, edited by Van Geenhoven, V., pp. 245–72. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kolln, Martha J. & Funk, Robert W.. 2012. Understanding English Grammar. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1994. ‘Finiteness’. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Asher, R. E., pp. 1245–8. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2005. ‘Action Nominal Constructions’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B., pp. 254–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. ‘Verbal and Nominalized Finite Clauses in Turkish’. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 305–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1932 [1915]. A Handbook of Present-Day English. 5th ed. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. ‘Raising and Transparency’. Language 71(1): 1–62.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsson, Inger. 2013. ‘Nordic Digraphia and Diglossia’. In Spoken and Written Language: Relations between Latin and the Vernacular Languages in the Earlier Middle Ages, edited by Garrison, M., Orbán, A. P. & Mostert, M., pp. 73–86. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers.Google Scholar
Lassen, Inger. 2003a. Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A Survey of Style and Grammatical Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lassen, Inger. 2003b. ‘Imperative Readings of Grammatical Metaphor: A Study of Congruency in the Imperative’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 279–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. ‘Introduction’. In Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, edited by Laury, R., pp. ix–xiv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Arús, Jorge & Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael. 2010. Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish: A Contrastive Study with English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. ‘Variation in the Romance Infinitive’. Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 1–61.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2007. ‘Diachrony and Finiteness: Subordination in the Dialects of Southern Italy’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 335–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas Hun-tak. 2000. ‘Finiteness and Null Arguments in Child Cantonese’. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies 30: 365–93.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Deuchar, Margaret & Hoogenraad, Robert. 1982. English Grammar for Today: A New Introduction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 2002 [1975]. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. Singapore: Longman.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 1991. Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative, and Cognitive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. ‘Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2008. ‘Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective’. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 31(2): 285–312.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Eden Sum-Hung. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese: A Text-Based Analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Li, Jinglian & Liu, Juan. 2005. ‘Finiteness and Non-Finiteness in Chinese’. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 26(1): 19–24.Google Scholar
Li, Jinxi. 2007 [1924]. Xinzhu guowen yufa [A new grammar of Mandarin Chinese]. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.Google Scholar
Li, Linding. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu juxing [Sentence patterns in modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Li, Ming. 2017. ‘Cong “qi” tihuan “zhi” kan shanggu zhonggu Hanyu de jianyushi’ [The so-called pivotal construction in old and middle Chinese: Viewed from the replacement of zhi(之) by qi(其)]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary linguistics] 19(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Li, Ruya. 2003. ‘Shuwei biaoyin guize yu zhubin buduicheng xianxiang’ [Predication indexing rule and subject-object asymmetry]. Waiguoyu [Foreign languages] 26(1): 22–9.Google Scholar
Li, Xulian. 2008. ‘Douan Zhuangyu de quzhe xingtai’ [Inflectional forms in the Douan Zhuang language]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 30(2): 65–7.Google Scholar
Li, Y. H. Audrey. 1985. ‘Abstract Case in Chinese’. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Li, Y. H. Audrey. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Li, Yuming. 1997. ‘Hanyu yufa “benwei” lunping: Jianping Xing Fuyi “xiaoju zhongshu shuo”’ [Views on the ‘central unit’ in Chinese grammar with comments on Xing Fuyi’s clause as pivot hypothesis]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 11(1): 16–23.Google Scholar
Li, Yunbing. 2006. ‘Miaoyao yu de feifenxi xingtai jiqi leixingxue yiyi’ [The non-synthetic forms in Miaoyao and their typological significance]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 28(2): 31–41.Google Scholar
Liardét, Cassi L. 2013. ‘An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learner’s Deployment of Grammatical Metaphor: Learning to Make Academically Valued Meanings’. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(2): 161–78.Google Scholar
Liardét, Cassi L. 2016a. ‘Nominalization and Grammatical Metaphor: Elaborating the Theory’. English for Specific Purposes 44: 16–29.Google Scholar
Liardét, Cassi L. 2016b. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: Distinguishing Success’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 109–18.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2006. ‘Time in a Language without Tense: The Case of Chinese’. Journal of Semantics 23(1): 1–53.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2010. ‘A Tenseless Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Revisited: A Response to Sybesma’. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 305–29.Google Scholar
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2012. ‘Multiple-Modal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese and Their Finiteness Properties’. Journal of Linguistics 48(1): 151–86.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linn, Andrew. 2006. ‘English Grammar Writing’. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, edited by Aarts, B. & McMahon, A., pp. 72–92. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liu, Chen-Sheng. 1999. ‘Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface’. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Liu, Danqing. 2010. ‘Hanyu shi yizhong dongcixing yuyan’ [Chinese as a verby language]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 24(1): 3–17.Google Scholar
Liu, Danqing. 2015. ‘Hanyu ji qinling yuyan liandongshi de jufa diwei he xianhedu’ [The syntactic status and mightiness of serial verb constructions in Chinese and its neighboring languages]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 36(3): 3–22.Google Scholar
Liu, Fu. 1920. Zhongguo wenfa tonglun [General introduction to Chinese grammar], edited by Yang, B.. Shanghai: Qunyi Books.Google Scholar
Liu, Qun. 2014. ‘Xiandai Hanyu lianci ruogan teshulei yanjiu’ [Some special types of conjunctions in modern Chinese]. PhD thesis, Wuhan University.Google Scholar
Liu, Ruoyun. 2003. ‘Huizhouhua cinei quzhe bianhua chuyi’ [On the inflectional forms in words of Huizhou dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in language and linguistics] 23(2): 110–14.Google Scholar
Liu, Ruoyun & Zhao, Xin. 2007. ‘Hanyu fangyan shengdiao quzhe de gongneng’ [The function of tonic inflections in Chinese dialects]. Fangyan [Dialect] 29(3): 226–31.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lowe, John Jeffrey. 2015. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lü, Jianming. 2009. ‘Goushi yu yixiang tushi’ [Construction and image schema]. Journal of Peking University 45(3): 103–7.Google Scholar
Lü, Jiping. 1958. Fuza weiyu [Complex predicates]. Shanghai: New Knowledge Press.Google Scholar
Lü, Jiping. 2002 [1979]. ‘Liangge pingmian liangzhong xingzhi: Cizu he juzi de fenxi’ [Two dimensions and two properties: Analysis of group and sentence]. Xuexi Yu Tansuo [Learning and exploring] 24(4): 80–94.Google Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang. 1990 [1982]. Zhongguo wenfa yaolue [Outlines of the grammar of Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang. 2002 [1979]. Lv Shuxiang wenji [Collected works of Lv Shuxiang], edited by Huang, G.. Changchun: Northeast China Normal University Press.Google Scholar
Luke, Jingguan. 2006. ‘Lun xiaoju zai Hanyu yufa zhong de diwei’ [On the status of clause in Chinese grammar]. Hanyu Xuebao [Journal of the Chinese language] 3(3): 2–14.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Parodi, Claudia. 2008. Key Terms in Syntax and Syntactic Theory. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, Jianzhong. 1998 [1898]. Mashi wentong [Ma’s Chinese grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2004. ‘Finite and Nonfinite from a Typological Perspective’. Linguistics 42(2): 359–85.Google Scholar
Maetzner, Eduard Adolf Ferdinand. 1874. An English Grammar. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Magnusson, Ulrika. 2013. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in Swedish Monolingual and Multilingual Upper Secondary School Students’ Writing’. Functions of Language 20(2): 250–81.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1946 [1923]. ‘The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages’. In The Meaning of Meaning, edited by Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A., pp. 296–336. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands, vol. 2. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Mallory, James Patrick. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Euruopeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2002. ‘Meaning beyond the Clause: SFL Perspectives’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 52–74.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1993. ‘Life as a Noun’. In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, edited by Martin, J. R. & Halliday, M. A. K., pp. 242–93. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger. 2001. ‘Null Case and the Distribution of PRO’. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 141–66.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1983 [1927]. ‘Functional Linguistics’. In Praguiana: Some Basic and Less-Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistics School, edited by Vachek, J. & Dušková, L., pp. 121–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter Hugoe. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014a. ‘Introduction’. In Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, pp. xiii–xviii. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014b. ‘Extending the Description of Process Type within the System of Transitivity in Delicacy Based on Levinian Verb Classes’. Functions of Language 21(2): 139–75.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Teruya, Kazuhiro & Lam, Marvin. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. ‘The Structure of Discourse and “Subordination”’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. ‘Finiteness in South Asian Languages: An Introduction’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1–27.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb Classification in Australian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miao, Yizhi. 1957. Hanyu yufa jichu zhishi [Basics in Chinese grammar]. Wuhan: Hubei People’s Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. ‘Toward a Construction-Based Model of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition’. Language 72: 215–47.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, et al. 2011. ‘Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books’. Science 331(6014): 176–82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, John Ezra. 1902. ‘Vergil’s Use of the Infinitive’. MA thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 2014 [1979]. Existential Sentences in English. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. ‘The Grammaticization of Coordination’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 331–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. ‘Events, Processes, and States’. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–34.Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley. 1832. A Practical Grammar of the English Language and Theory of Moods. 3rd ed. Portland, OR: G. Hyde and Company.Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley. 1844 [1795]. English Grammar. New York: M. & S. Raynor.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. ‘Some Typological Parameters of Converbs’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Haspelmath, M. & König, E., pp. 97–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nelson, Deborah G. Kemler, Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Jusczyk, Peter W. & Cassidy, Kimberly Wright. 1989. ‘How the Prosodic Cues in Motherese Might Assist Language Learning’. Journal of Child Language 16(1): 55–68.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. 2001. Essential English Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nesfield, John Collinson. 1908 [1898]. Manual of English Grammar and Composition. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1999. ‘Some Remarks on the Functionalist–Formalist Controversy in Linguistics’. In Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 1, edited by Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M. & Wheatley, K., pp. 469–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. ‘The Prague School and North American Functionalist Approaches to Syntax’. Journal of Linguistics 37: 101–26.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007a. ‘Constructional Economy and Nonfinite Independent Clauses’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 138–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007b. ‘Introduction’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2010. ‘Typology of Finiteness’. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12): 1176–89.Google Scholar
Niu, Ruochen & Osborne, Timothy. 2019. ‘Chunks Are Components: A Dependency Grammar Approach to the Syntactic Structure of Mandarin’. Lingua 224: 60–83.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. ‘Complementation’. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2: Complex Constructions, edited by Noonan, M., pp. 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nowak, Elke. 1996. Transforming the Images: Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Roy C. 1974. ‘Syntactic Differences between Speech and Writing’. American Speech 49(1/2): 102–10.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay L. 1996. ‘The Discourses of Secondary School Mathematics’. PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. 1904. An Advanced English Syntax: Based on the Principles and Requirements of the Grammatical Society. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 1992. ‘Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues’. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Painter, Claire. 2003. ‘The Use of a Metaphorical Mode of Meaning in Early Language Development’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 151–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pan, Wuyun. 1991. ‘Shanggu Hanyu shidongci de quzhe xingshi’ [Causative verb inflections in ancient Chinese]. Wenzhou Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Wenzhou Teachers’ College] 13(2): 48–57.Google Scholar
Pang, Shuangzi & Wang, Kefei. 2020. ‘Language Contact through Translation: The Influence of Explicitness in English–Chinese Translation on Language Change in Vernacular Chinese’. Target 32(3): 420–55.Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. ‘Negation’. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, edited by Shopen, T., pp. 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 2011. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peng, Guozhen & Chappell, Hilary. 2011. ‘Ya(33) “Give” as a Valency Increaser in Jinghpo Nuclear Serialization: From Benefactive to Malefactive’. Studies in Language 35(1): 128–67.Google Scholar
Peng, Rui. 2012. ‘Suyin jianyuju de kejieshoudu he yiyi diaocha’ [A survey on the acceptability and meaning judgment of cause-complement pivotal constructions]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 62(6): 509–24.Google Scholar
Peng, Rui. 2013. ‘A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account of the Chinese Cause-Complement Pivotal Construction’. Language Sciences 40: 53–79.Google Scholar
Peng, Rui. 2016. ‘Chinese Descriptive Pivotal Construction: Taxonomy and Prototypicality’. Language and Linguistics 17(4): 529–73.Google Scholar
Peng, Xuanwei. 2011. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics: Chinese Systemic Functional Grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Peng, Xuanwei. 2017. ‘“(Text as) Wording” as Wording in Text Size: Stretching Lexicogrammatical Rank Hierarchy from Clause to Text’. Word 63(2): 136–72.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 2007. ‘In What Ways Can Finite and Nonfinite Clauses Differ? Evidence from Russian’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 250–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Bloom, Paul. 1990. ‘Natural Language and Natural Selection’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4): 707–84.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1993. Sentential Complementation in Sranan: On the Formation of an English-Based Creole Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2008. ‘Without Aspect’. In Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, edited by Corbett, G. G. & Noonan, M., pp. 263–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Popjes, Jack & Popjes, Jo. 1986. ‘Canela-Krahô’. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1, edited by Derbyshire, D. C. & Pullum, G. K., pp. 128–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 2014 [1966]. ‘On So-Called “Pronouns” in English’. In An Annotated Syntax Reader: Lasting Insights and Questions, edited by Kayne, R., Leu, T. & Zanuttini, R., pp. 12–25. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1904. A Grammar of Late Modern English, vol. 1. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1923. The Infinitive, the Gerund and the Participles of the English Verb. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English, vol. 2. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Qu, Aitang. (1985). ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xingtai de jiegou jiqi yanbian’ [The structure and evolution of verbal inflections in Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 7(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Qu, Chengxi. 1996. ‘Xiandai Hanyu zhong “juzi” de dingyi jiqi diwei’ [The definition and status of ‘sentence’ in modern Chinese]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 10(4): 16–23.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo P. 1987. ‘Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–36.Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise. 1988. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: An Initial Analysis’. In Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically-Inspired Approaches, edited by Steiner, E. & Veltman, R., pp. 133–47. London: Burns & Oates.Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise. 2003. ‘Renewal of Connection: Integrating Theory and Practice in an Understanding of Grammatical Metaphor’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 37–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 1984. ‘On Differences between Spoken and Written Language’. Discourse Processes 7(1): 43–55.Google Scholar
Reed, Alonzo & Kellogg, Brainerd. 1900. A High School Grammar. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., Publishers.Google Scholar
Rickman, Paul & Rudanko, Juhani. 2018. Corpus-Based Studies on Non-Finite Complements in Recent English. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. ‘The Composition of INFL: An Exploration of Tense, Tenseless Languages, and Tenseless Constructions’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–86.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ross, Charles Hunter. 1893. The Absolute Participle in Middle and Modern English. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. ‘Auxiliaries as Main Verbs’. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, edited by Todd, W., pp. 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1972. ‘The Category Squish: Endstation Hauptwort’. In Proceedings of the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., pp. 316–28. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2010. ‘Explaining Grammatical Variation and Change: A Case Study of Complementation in American English over Three Decades’. Journal of English Linguistics 38(1): 4–24.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2015. Linking Form and Meaning: Studies on Selected Control Patterns in Recent English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rusteberg, F. G. A. 1874. ‘Historical Development of the Gerund in the English Language’. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2010. ‘Toward Mastering the Discourses of Reasoning: Use of Grammatical Metaphor at Advanced Levels of Foreign Language Acquisition’. Modern Language Journal 94(2): 181–97.Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2015. ‘A Meaning-Based Approach to the Study of Complexity in L2 Writing: The Case of Grammatical Metaphor’. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 51–63.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Swadesh, Morris. 1946. ‘American Indian Grammatical Categories’. Word 2(2): 103–12.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Janet. 1973. ‘Existential Sentences: A Linguistic Universal?’ American Speech 48(3): 239–45.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2008. The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark. 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2007. ‘Finiteness in Non-Transformational Syntactic Frameworks’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 59–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2012. ‘“Lingju” he “liushuiju”’ [‘Minor sentences’ and ‘flowing sentences’]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 62(5): 403–15.Google Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2016. Mingci he dongci [Nouns and verbs]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Shi, Cunzhi. 1954. ‘Lun dixishi he jianyushi’ [On consecutive and pivotal constructions]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 3(3): 5–8.Google Scholar
Shi, Dingxu. 2009. ‘Weicixing binyu de jufa diwei’ [The syntactic status of verbal objects]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic sciences] 8(5): 493–502.Google Scholar
Shi, Youwei. 2017. ‘The Chinese Tense and Aspect Revisited: An Approach with Le as the Focus’. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic sciences] 16(2): 126–41.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi. 1995. ‘Shijian de yiweixing dui jieci yansheng de yingxiang’ [The impact of one dimension of time on preposition evolution]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 34(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. ‘Hanyu de xianding dongci he feixianding dongci zhibie’ [Difference between finite verb and non-finite verb in Chinese]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 15(2): 23–7.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. ‘Dative Subject Constructions Twenty-Two Years Later’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2): 45–76.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2001. ‘Introduction: Some Basic Issues in the Grammar of Causation’. In The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, edited by Shibatani, M., pp. 1–22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sidey, Thomas K. 1909. The Participle in Plautus, Petronius, and Apuleius. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2013. ‘The PRO-Wh Connection in Modal Existential Wh-Constructions: An Argument in Favor of Semantic Control’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4): 1163–205.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Taverniers, Miriam & Ravelli, Louise, eds. 2003. Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. & Erbaugh, Mary S.. 2005. ‘Temporal Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese’. Linguistics 43: 713–56.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael & Escobedo, Joyce. 2001. ‘The Semantics of To-Infinitival vs. -Ing Complement Constructions in English’. In Chicago Linguistic Society CLS 37: The Main Session, edited by Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H. & Neuvel, S., pp. 549–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott & Perlmutter, David M.. 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2006. ‘Causatives: Semantics’. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Brown, K., Anderson, A., Bauer, L., et al. pp. 265–8. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2013. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Song, Yuzhu. 1981. Xiandai Hanyu yufa lunji [Modern Chinese grammar colloquium]. Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Press.Google Scholar
Song, Yuzhu. 1982. ‘Dingxin weiyu cunzaiju’ [Endocentric structuring as predicate in existential constructions]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language teaching and linguistic studies] 4(3): 27–34.Google Scholar
Song, Yuzhu. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu yufa shijiang [Ten lectures on modern Chinese grammar]. Tianjin: Nankai University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Yuzhu. 1988. ‘Lüetan “jia zunzaiju”’ [On pseudo-existentials]). Journal of Tianjin Normal University 14(6): 86–9.Google Scholar
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich. 2002a. ‘Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Exploring Some Implications for the Overall Model’. Languages in Contrast 4(1): 137–64.Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich. 2002b. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in Translation: Some Methods for Corpus-Based Investigations’. Language and Computers 39(1): 213–28.Google Scholar
Stephens, Nola. 2015. ‘Dative Constructions and Givenness in the Speech of Four-Year-Olds’. Linguistics 53(3): 405–42.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sun, Yinxin. 1998. ‘“de” zi jianyuju xinlun’ [Pivotal construction with ‘de’]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 19(1): 32–4.Google Scholar
Suonan, Jiancuo. 2013. ‘Zangyu dongci de nianzhuoxing ji quzhexing bianhua yanjiu’ [Changes in the inflection and affixation in Tibetan verbs]. Xizang Daxue Xuebao [Journal of the University of Tibet] 28(1): 70–5.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1913. Collected Papers of Henry Sweet, edited by Wyld, H. C.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sybesma, Rint. 2007. ‘Whether We Tense-Agree Overtly or Not’. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 580–8.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. ‘The Uniform Case-Licensing of Subjects in Welsh’. Linguistic Review 15(1): 69–133.Google Scholar
Tan, Fu. 1995. ‘Hanyu zhong zhoubianxing de biaoda yiji xianding dongci he feixianding dongci de qubie’ [Neighbouring expressions and the difference between finite verb and non-finite verb in Chinese]. In The Fourth International Symposium of the Chinese Language Teaching, pp. 337–40. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. ‘Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-Bar Theory’. PhD thesis, Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
Tang, Ting-Chi. 2000. ‘Hanyu de xianding ziju yu feixianding ziju’ [Finite and nonfinite clauses in Chinese]. Yuyan Ji Yuyanxue [Language and linguistics] 1(1): 191–214.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. ‘Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives’. Language 58(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2002. ‘Systemic-Functional Linguistics and the Notion of Grammatical Metaphor: A Theoretical Study and a Proposal for a Semiotic-Functional Integrative Model’. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. ‘A Discourse Approach to the Cross-Linguistic Category “Adjective”’. In Explaining Language Universals, edited by Hawkins, J. A., pp. 167–85. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomson, Elizabeth & Armour, William. 2008. Systemic Functional Perspectives of Japanese: Descriptions and Applications. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ting, Jen. 1998. ‘Deriving the Bei-Construction in Mandarin Chinese’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 319–54.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1992. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1999. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2011. Causatives in Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich. 2017. How Grammar Links Concepts: Verb-Mediated Constructions, Attribution, Perspectivizing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ussery, Cherlon, Ding, Lydia & Liu, Yining Rebecca. 2016. ‘The Typology of Mandarin Infinitives’. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1: 1–25.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. 2008. ‘Foreword’. In Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages, edited by Vajda, E. J., pp. vii–xi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Essen, Arthur J. 1983. E. Kruisinga: A Chapter in the History of Linguistics in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., ed. 1992. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert Jr. & Randy, LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. ‘Verbs and Times’. Philosophical Review 66(2): 143–60.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1990. ‘Semantic Criteria in English Complement Selection’. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1996. ‘The Story of -ing: A Subjective Perspective’. In The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, edited by Pütz, M. & Dirven, R., pp. 417–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2000. ‘Iconicity in English Complement Constructions: Conceptual Distance and Cognitive Processing Levels’. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, edited by Horie, K., pp. 199–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila & Emonds, Joseph Embley. 2015. ‘The Categorial Status of Infinitives and Gerunds in English and Czech’. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Anglophone Studies September 4–5, 2014, edited by Bell, G. J. & Nemčoková, K.. Zlín, Czech Republic: Tomas Bata University.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1998. ‘On the Grammar of Inflected Nonfinite Forms (with Special Reference to Old Neapolitan)’. In Clause Combining and Text Structure, vol. 22, edited by Korzen, I. & Herslund, M., pp. 135–58. Copenhagen: Samfundsliteratur.Google Scholar
Votaw, Clyde W. 1896. ‘The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek’. PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1986 [1934]. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Ruprecht von. 2012. The Grammaticalization of ‘Give’ + Infinitive: A Comparative Study of Russian, Polish, and Czech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wang, Ailu. 1992. ‘Qixian fangyan dongci jieguoti de neibu quzhe’ [The internal inflections of resultant verbs in Qi county dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in language and linguistics] 11(1): 26–30.Google Scholar
Wang, Dongmei. 2001. ‘Xiandai Hanyu dongming huzhuan de renzhi yanjiu’ [Nominalization and verbalization in contemporary Chinese: A cognitive linguistic enquiry]. PhD thesis, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing.Google Scholar
Wang, Futing. 1960. ‘Liandongshi haishi lianweishi’ [Serial verb or serial predicate]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 9(6): 281–4.Google Scholar
Wang, Jianjun. 2003. Hanyu cunzaiju de lishi yanjiu [A diachronic study of Chinese existential sentences]. Tianjin: Tianjin Classics Publishing House.Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1957. Hanyu shigao [A history of the Chinese language]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1984. Zhongguo yufa lilun: Wang Li wenji diyijuan [Theories of Chinese grammar: The collected works of Wang Li, vol. 1]. Jinan: Shangdong Education Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1985 [1943]. Zhongguo xiandai yufa [Modern Chinese grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Yong & Jie, Xu. 2013. ‘A Systemic Typology of Existential and Possessive Constructions’. Functions of Language 20(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Webster, Noah. 1828. An American Dictionary of the English Language. New York: S. Converse.Google Scholar
Webster, Noah. 1833. An Improved Grammar of the English Language. New Haven: Durrie & Peck.Google Scholar
Wei, Zhaohui. 2005. ‘Zhouqin Lianghan liandongshi fazhan bianhua’ [The development of serial verb construction in Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties]. PhD thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.Google Scholar
Wetzer, Harrie. 1996. The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken. 1994. ‘Optional Infinitives, Head Movement and the Economy of Derivations’. In Verb Movement, edited by Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N., pp. 305–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken. 1998. ‘Very Early Parameter Setting and the Unique Checking Constraint: A New Explanation of the Optional Infinitive Stage’. Lingua 106: 23–79.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken. 2004. ‘Lenneberg’s Dream: Learning, Normal Language Development and Specific Language Impairment’. In Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics, edited by Jenkins, L., pp. 239–83. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1886. Essentials of English Grammar. Boston: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1945. ‘Grammatical Categories’. Language 21(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank. 1997. ‘Temporal Reference and Eventivity in Root Infinitives’. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank. 1998. ‘The Interpretation of Dutch Children’s Root Infinitives: The Effect of Eventivity’. First Language 18: 379–402.Google Scholar
Williams, Charles Bray. 1909. The Participle in the Book of Acts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Winskel, Heather & Luksaneeyanawin, Sudaporn. 2009. ‘Obligatory Grammatical Categories and the Expression of Temporal Events’. Journal of Child Language 36(2): 355–80.Google Scholar
Wisely, John. 1907. An English Grammar. Chicago: Atkinson, Mentzer & Grover.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wood, Frederick T. 1956. ‘Gerund versus Infinitive’. ELT Journal 11(1): 11–16.Google Scholar
Wu, Cunjing & Hou, Xuechao. 1982. Xiandai Hanyu jufa fenxi [Syntactic analysis of modern Chinese]. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Qizhu. 1990. Liandongju jianyuju [Serial verb sentence and pivotal sentence]. Beijing: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, Guozheng. 1995. ‘“Ju benwei” “cizu benwei” he “xiaoju zhongshu”: Hanyu yufa biaoshu tixi gengdi de neizai dongli he fazhan quxiang’ [‘Sentence’, ‘group’ or ‘clause’ as the central unit: The inner motive and developmental trend in Chinese grammar]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 9(4): 5–13.Google Scholar
Xing, Fuyi. 1995. ‘Xiaoju zhongshu shuo’ [The clause-pivot theory]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 34(6): 420–9.Google Scholar
Xing, Fuyi. 2017. Modern Chinese Grammar: A Clause-Pivot Theoretical Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xing, Xin. 2004. Xiandai Hanyu jianyushi [Pivotal constructions in Chinese]. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Jie. 2010. ‘Juzi yufa gongneng de xingzhi yu fanwei’ [The nature and scope of grammatical function of sentence]. Huazhong Shifan Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Central China Normal University] 49(2): 101–6.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejiong. 1986. ‘Towards a Lexical-Thematic Theory of Control’. Linguistic Review 5: 345–76.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejiong. 1994. ‘Yu kongyulei youguan de yixie Hanyu yufa xianxiang’ [Some grammatical issues related to PRO]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 33(5): 321–9.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejiong. 1999. ‘Chongju zhong de kongwei zhuyu’ [Empty subject in subordinate clauses]. In Gongxing yu gexing: Hanyu yuyanxue zhong de zhengyi [Universals and specifics: Controversies in Chinese linguistics], edited by Xu, L., pp. 159–75. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2003. A Study of Non-Finite Clauses in English: A Systemic Functional Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2004. ‘Towards the Criteria of Non-Finite Clause Identification: A Systemic-Functional Approach’. Language Sciences 26(3): 233–49.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2015. ‘On Finiteness in Chinese from the Perspective of Cryptotype and Cline’. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies 22(8): 6–10.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2018. ‘Textual Metaphor Revisited’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38(2): 205–22.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2019a. ‘Interpersonal Metaphor Revisited: Identification, Categorization, and Syndrome’. Social Semiotics 29(2): 186–203.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2019b. ‘Taishang zuozhe zhuxituan de gainian yufa yinyu chanshi’ [Taishang zuozhe zhuxituan in Chinese as ideational grammatical metaphor]. Zhongguo Waiyu [Foreign languages in China] 16(1): 48–54.Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2020. ‘Full Realization Principle for the Identification of Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Nominalization as Example’. Journal of World Languages 6(3): 161–74.Google Scholar
Yang, Chengkai. 1984. ‘“Jianyushi” cunfei zhizheng’ [Arguing for and against ‘pivotal construction’]. Xuexi Yu Sikao [Learning and thinking] 2(1): 64–9.Google Scholar
Yang, Yanning. 2008. ‘Typological Interpretation of Differences between Chinese and English in Grammatical Metaphor’. Language Sciences 30(4): 450–78.Google Scholar
Yang, Yanning. 2014. Grammatical Metaphor in Chinese. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Yang, Yiming & Cai, Bing. 2011. ‘Hanyu dongci de quzhe jizhi yu xiandingxing wenti’ [On the mechanism of inflection and finiteness of Chinese verbs]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 25(2): 159–74.Google Scholar
Yin, Huanxian. 1954. ‘Tan liandongshi’ [On serial verb construction]. Wenshizhe [Journal of literature, history and philosophy] 4(3): 32–3.Google Scholar
Yóu, Rujie. 2002. ‘Xiandai Hanyu jianyuju de jufa he yuyi tezheng’ [Syntactic and semantic features of V1+N+V2 in Mandarin Chinese]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 23(6): 1–6.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinard Willem. 1975. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zhang, Bojiang. 2000. ‘Hanyu liandongshi de jiwuxing jieshi’ [Interpreting Chinese serial verb constructions with transitivity]. In Yufa yanjiu he tansuo [Research and exploration into grammar], vol. 9, edited by Shi, G., Xu, S., Rao, C., et al. pp. 129–41. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Cheng. 2014. ‘Jindai Hanyu shiyiju yishi qusheng xianxiang yanjiu’ [On the absence of cause in causative structures in early Mandarin: A case study of language contact]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 64(3): 236–46.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jing. 1977. ‘“Liandongshi” he “jianyushi” yinggai quxiao’ [Terms like serial and pivotal constructions to be abolished]. Journal of Zhengzhou University 9(4): 71–80.Google Scholar
Zhang, Meifang. 2015. Functional Approaches to English-Chinese Translation. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Ning. 1997. ‘Syntactic Dependencies in Mandarin Chinese’. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Zhang, Xiaoshan. 1996. ‘A Review of Studies on the Pivotal Construction’. In Dongci yanjiu zongshu [A review of studies on verbs], edited by Hu, Y. & Fan, X., pp. 263–75. Taiyuan: Shanxi United Universities Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Zhigong. 1982. Xiandai Hanyu [Modern Chinese]. Beijing: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Zhiyi. 1987. ‘Hanyu quzhe bianhua de jianhua yu xiaoshi’ [The simplifying and disappearing of inflections in Chinese]. Yuwen Yanjiu [Chinese studies] 8(3): 26–8.Google Scholar
Zheng, Ji’e. 1996. ‘Jiaguwen zhong de liandongju he jianyuju’ [Serial verb sentence and pivotal sentence in oracle bone inscriptions]. Guhanyu Yanjiu [Research in ancient Chinese language] 9(2): 29–31.Google Scholar
Zhou, Guoguang. 1998. ‘Ertong yuyan zhong de lianwei jiegou he xiangguan de jufa wenti’ [Predicates in series in children’s language and related grammatical issues]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 37(3): 181–8.Google Scholar
Zhu, Dexi. 1985. Yufa wenda [Answers to questions in grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1982. ‘On So-Called Existentials: A Typological Problem’. Lingua 56: 261–81.Google Scholar
Zou, Shaohua & Zhang, Junping. 2000. ‘Shilun dongci lianyong de zhongxin’ [On the kernel of verbs used in series]. In Yufa yanjiu he tansuo [Research and exploration into grammar], vol. 9, edited by Shi, G., Xu, S., Rao, C., et al. pp. 122–8. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Bingjun Yang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
  • Book: Non-Finiteness
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009072502.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Bingjun Yang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
  • Book: Non-Finiteness
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009072502.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Bingjun Yang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
  • Book: Non-Finiteness
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009072502.010
Available formats
×