隨著媒體及網路的發展，語言演變的速度越來越快，漢語也出現許多具有極高能產性的流行構式，並逐漸受到研究者的關注(張誼生，2020)。另一方面，漢語四字格的構式特點也越來越受到重視，掌握四字格的構式義及語義限制，有助於提升語言學習的效率(劉德馨、施孟賢，2022)。「X連連」這一格式，具有四字格傾向，並展現出如流行構式般的能產性與創新性，然而與多數流行構式不同的是，X連連並非完全產生於當代，古漢語中即可見到許多「X連連」。若能研究這類沿用至今、反映古漢語語法的詞語表達，如何在現代漢語中呈現，對漢語語法的瞭解具有極高的啟示性(劉德馨等，2019)。因此本研究採用基於構式的語言觀探究X連連在形式、語義、搭配限制及功能上的特點。此外，為了更具體的說明語言現象背後的認知作用，本研究亦借助概念整合理論分析X連連構式的語義演變及創新使用。
研究發現在現代漢語中，X連連構式主要有三個義項，其搭配詞X可分為七大範例類型，這些範例類型皆可從古漢語語料中找到生成理據，支持基於用法理論的範例模型。在形式方面，X連連在古漢語範例的基礎上進一步發生了宿主類型擴展與構式強迫等現象。此外，X連連構式於現代漢語的能產性的增加與新聞語體的需求與發展關係密切。由於X連連構式與「話題－評述」、「四字格」等多個極具漢語特點的圖式性構式存在多重繼承關係，因而受到現代漢語報刊語言的「青睞」。在教學應用方面，本文將研究成果結合新聞語料及語言任務，提供以構式為導向的教學設計，以期促進構式觀華語教學的發展。

As technology changes and media converge, the rate of language evolution is increasing. Many popular constructions with high productivity have appeared in Chinese, which have attracted more attention from researchers (Zhang Yisheng, 2020). On the other hand, more attention has also been paid to the constructional characteristics of Chinese four-syllable expressions. Mastering the constructional meaning and semantic constraints of four-syllable expressions will enhance language learning (Liu Te-Hsin & Shih Meng-Hsien, 2022). In most cases, "X-Lianlian" appears as a four-syllable chunk and shows the productivity and creativity like most popular constructions. However, unlike most popular constructions, which emerge in modern Chinese, X-Lianlian can be seen in many ancient Chinese texts. Studying such expressions, which reflects the grammar of ancient Chinese that are still in use today, provides important insights into Chinese grammar (Liu Te-Hsin et al., 2019). The present study, therefore, examined the characteristics of X-Lianlian in terms of form, semantics, collocation constraints and functions, utilizing a construction-based approach. To explain the cognitive process behind linguistic phenomena more concretely, Conceptual Blending Theory(CBT) was also used to analyze the semantic change and novel use of X-Lianlian Construction.
Results suggest that in modern Chinese, the X-Lianlian Construction has three constructional senses, and its collocation X can be divided into seven categories according to the semantics. In terms of form, X-Lianlian experienced Host-class expansion and has coercion effects to the collocation X. Both contextual factors and previous exemplars in ancient Chinese texts provide motivation for the development of X-Lainlian Construction. The increase of productivity of X-Lianlian Construction in modern Chinese is closely related to the demand and development of news register. The X-Lianlian Construction has multiple inheritance with the Topic-Comment Construction and the Four-Syllable Chunk Construction, which made it the favored expression in the modern Chinese newspaper language. Combining our findings and the previous research as reference, we offer sample instructional design and our advice on educational application with the hope to help contribute to construction-based approaches to teaching Chinese as a second language.

文秋芳（2013）。認知語言學與二語教學。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。
方梅（2007）。語法動因對句法的塑造。修辭學習。6，1-7。
王力（1984）。中國語法理論。山東：山東教育出版社。
王冬梅（2010）。現代漢語動名互轉的認知研究。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
王初明（2015）。構式和構式語境與第二語言學習。現代外語。38（3），357-365。
王炳勻、許展嘉、龍水水和丁曉穎（2020）。語料驅動學習融入華語課堂之教學設計。華語文教學研究。17（3），103-137。
王剛和楊寧（2009）。「連連」和「一連」的比較分析。吉林省教育學院學報。 25（2），41-43。
王寅（2007）。認知語言學。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
王寅（2009a）。動結構式的體驗性事件結構分析。外語教學與研究。 5， 345-350。
王寅（2009b）。構式壓制、詞彙壓制和慣性壓制。外語和外語教學。 12，5-9。
王惠（2005）。從構式語法理論看漢語詞義研究。中文計算語言學期刊。4（10），495- 508。
王黎（2003）。「連」和「連連」。漢語學習。 4， 33-36。
代禮勝（2009）。邏輯轉喻與一般會話含義。外語教學。6，17-23。
朱德熙（1985）。語法答問。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙（2007）。語法講義。香港：商務印書館。
朱賽萍（2015）。漢語的四字格。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
吳培筠（2018）。由報刊到網路之新聞華語教學設計研究。台北市：國立臺灣大學碩士論文（未出版）。
呂叔湘（1963）。現代漢語單雙音節問題初探。中國語文。1，347-360。
呂叔湘（2004）。現代漢語八百詞 ( 增訂本 )。北京：商務印書館。
呂夢雅（2016）。面向對外漢語教學的連續義共量副詞研究。瀋陽：瀋陽師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
宋作艷（2011a）。輕動詞、事件與漢語中的賓語強迫。中國語文。3，205-217。
宋作艷（2011b）。邏輯轉喻的半能產性與多種解釋。語言教學與研究。3，43-50。
宋作艷（2013）。邏輯轉喻、事件強迫與名詞動用。語言科學。2，117-129。
宋作艷（2014）。漢英事件強迫之比較研究。語言暨語言學。2，199-229。
宋作艷（2016）。從構式強迫看新「各種X」。語言教學與研究。1， 57-66。
宋作艷（2018）。壓制現象研究：關鍵問題與最新趨勢。語言研究集刊。3，112-130。
李文浩（2019）。認知突顯的構式表徵與主觀調控。上海：學林出版社。
李鐵范（2009）。「屢次」類重複副詞與動詞的語義選擇限制。池州學院學報。 23 （1），55-59。
束定芳（2008）。認知語義學。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
沈家煊（2001）。語言的主觀性與主觀化。外語教學與研究。33（4），268-275。
沈家煊（2006）。「糅合」和「截搭」。世界漢語教學，4，5-12。
沈家煊（2019）。超越主謂結構－－對言語法和對言格式。北京：商務印書館。
邢福義（1997）。很淑女之類說法語言文化背景的思考。語言研究，2，1-10。
周文華（2014）。重複類頻率副詞句法語義分析。南京師範大學文學院學報。3，164-168。
周建和陳群（2011）。語感培養模式：對外漢語教學的理念與實踐。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。
屈承熹（2010）。漢語功能篇章語法－從認知、功能到篇章結構。台北：文鶴出版有限公司。
林建宏和張榮興（2013）。從心理空間理論來分析華語的臨時量詞。華語文教學研究，10（4），81-108。
邵軍航和余素青（2006）。認知語言學的經驗觀、突顯觀、注意觀及其一致性。上海大學學報（社會科學版）。13（3），124-130。
施宏春（2001）。名詞的描述性語義特徵。中國語文，3， 212-224。
施宏春（2012）。從構式壓制看語法和修辭的互動關係。當代修辭學，1， 1-17。
施春宏（2011）。第二語言教學漢語構式研究的基本狀況和研究取向。語言教學與研究，6，98-108。
施偉偉（2008）。頻率副詞「連連」與「一連」的語用功能比較。湖州師範學院學報。 30（5），101-104。
柯希茜（2015）。頻率副詞連連與一連的習得研究。課程教育研究。 12 （9），214-216。
洪煒（2013）。漢語作為第二語言的近義詞教學實驗研究。世界漢語教學。 27（3）。424-432。
唐為群（2010）。「原來」、「從來」、「連連」三組時間副詞研究。武漢：武漢大學出版社。
徐通鏘（2008）。漢語結構的基本原理：字本位和語言研究。山東：中國海洋大學出版社。
祝克懿（2005）。新聞語體的交融功能。復旦學報：社會科學版，3，10。
袁野（2017）。構式語法的理論、流派和應用。北京：高等教育出版社。
袁影（2004）。論戰爭隱喻的普遍性及文化淵源。外語研究，4，36-39。
馬清華（2005）。並列結構的自組織研究。上海：復旦大學出版社。
高航（2009）。認知語法與漢語轉類問題。上海：上海交通大學出版社。
張文賢（2019）。語體視角下的練習設計。國際漢語教育（中英文），3，20-26。
張榮興（2006）。從心理空間理論看「最短篇」小說中之隱喻。華語文教學研究，3（1），117-133。
張榮興（2012）。心理空間理論與《莊子》「用」的隱喻。語言暨語言學，13（5），999-1027。
張誼生（1996）。名詞的語義基礎及功能轉化與副詞修飾名詞。語言教學與研究，4，57-75。續（1997）。1，135-142。
張誼生（2000）。現代漢語副詞研究。上海：學林出版社。
張誼生（2020）。當代漢語流行構式研究。上海：上海三聯書店。
張翼（2013）。概念整合理論對於語法問題的解釋力：以漢語動結式為例。外語與外語教學，4，43-47
曹秀玲、楊素英、黃月圓、高立群和崔希亮（2006）。漢語作為第二語言話題句習得研究。世界漢語教學，3，86-102。
陳奕蓁（2016）。戰爭動詞在報紙媒體上之隱喻使用。台北市：國立政治大學碩士論文（未出版）。
陳秋宏（2011）。內隱／外顯教學和跨語言遷徒對華語為第二語言習得的影響。臺灣華語教學研究，3，77-96。
陳滿華（2009）。構式語法理論對二語教學的啟示。 語言教學與研究，4，64-70。
陳鑫雨（2016）。副詞「一連、連連、接連、連續」的偏誤分析及教學設計。長沙：湖南師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
陳寶勤（1998）。漢語副詞生源探微。 瀋陽大學學報，1，18。
陶紅印（1999）。試論語體分類的語法學意義。當代語言學，1（3），15-24。
陸佳英和肖運初（2006）。新詞概念合成的認知語義學研究。外語研究，5，5-8。
陸儉明（2004）。詞語句法、語義的多功能性：對構式語法理論的解釋。外國語， 2（2），15-20。
陸儉明（2004）。構式語法理論與漢語研究。載於劉正光(主編)，構式語法研究(頁21-29)。上海：上海外語出版社。
尋翠（2015）。現代漢語表示連續義的「連」類副詞研究。上海：上海師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
彭睿（2011）。臨界頻率和非臨界頻率－頻率和語法化關係的重新審視。中國語文，1，3-18, 95。
馮勝利（1997）。漢語的韻律、詞法與句法。北京：北京大學出版社。
馮勝利（2006）。論漢語書面正式語體的特徵與教學。世界漢語教學。4，98-106。
馮勝利（2011）。語體語法及其文學功能。當代修辭學，4，1-13。
馮勝利（2018）。漢語語體語法概論。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
馮勝利、劉樂寧、朱永平和閻玲（2018）。漢語教師專業技能指導手冊。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
黃潔（2009）。副名結構轉喻操作的語義壓制動因。解放軍外國語學院學報，1，9-13。
楊黎黎和汪國勝（2018）。基於使用的語言觀下頻率對圖式構式的建構作用。語言教學與研究，4，22-33。
溫鎖林（2018）。當代新興構式「我A，我B」研究。當代修辭學，1，82-91。
葉昕媛（2009）。連、一連、連連的比較研究。揚州：揚州大學碩士論文（未出版）。
董成如和楊才元（2009）。構式對詞項壓制的探索。外語學刊，5， 42－45。
董秀芳（2008）。漢語動轉名的無標記性與漢語語法化模式的關聯。歷史語言學研究。1：191-200。2009年又收入北大中文學刊：649-658。2017年又收入漢語詞匯化和語法化的現象與規律。上海：學林出版社(頁137-148)。
董秀芳（2016）。主觀性表達在漢語中的凸顯性及其表現特徵。語言科學，15（6）， 561-570。
賈玉娟（2015）。戰爭隱喻廣泛性之理據分析。學術界，12，148-153。
靳洪剛（2011）。現代語言教學的十大原則。世界漢語教學，25（1），78-98。
趙元任（1968）。中國話的文法(英)。加州大學出版社；呂叔湘節譯本。漢語口語語法，商務印書館，1979；丁邦新全譯本，中國話的文法(增訂本)，香港：香港中文大學出版社，2002。
趙凌珺和盧植（2013）。基於認知構式語法的構式項壓制現象研究。外語學刊，3。
趙新（2002）。「連、連連、一連」的語義和句法分析學。廣東教育學院學報。22（3），80-84。
劉丹青（2005）。作為典型構式句的非典型「連」字句。語言教學與研究，4。
劉正光（2009）。認知語言學對外語教學的啟示。中國外語，5，29-35。
劉正光（2010）。認知語言學的語言觀與外語教學的基本原則。外語研究，1，8-14。
劉宇紅（2007）。從構式語法看漢語成語的仿用。解放軍外國語學院學報，6，10-13。
劉宇紅和余曉梅（2007）。現代漢語中的軍事隱喻研究。語言教學與研究，3，12-20。
劉洋（2012）。論認知語言學的外語教學觀。中國外語教育，5（4），13-20。
劉德馨（2020）。構式成語的語法結構、認知歷程與華語教學啟示。載於國立台灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程（主編）。華語文教學的多元視野與跨界思考（頁 237-280）。台北：聯經出版公司。
劉德馨、呂佳蓉、蔡宜妮和蘇以文（2019）。四字格成語的習語性和規律性—以「一X#Y」為例。清華學報，49（4），683-719。
劉德馨和施孟賢（2022）。建置構式成語語料庫輔助華語教學－兼論同型構式和近義構式。華語文教學研究。19（1），95-121。
蕭惠貞（2017）。認知語言學視角下之華語教學實證探究。台北：新學林出版股份有限公司。
應晨錦（2005）。「連連」的動詞用法。語文學刊，5，75-77。
應晨錦（2005）。「連連」的動詞用法語文學刊。語文學刊（高教版）。5，75-77。
戴金惠（2014）。生活、認知與中文教學。台北：新學林出版股份有限公司。
魏啟君（2009）。連連的語義變遷。銅仁學院學報。 11 （1），74-78。
羅宇（2011）。「一連」和「連連」的異同及認知解釋。現代語文。 4，21-24。
蘇丹潔和陸儉明（2010）。「構式—語塊」句法分析法和教學法。世界漢語教學，24（4），557-567。
蘇以文（2010）。語用學的發展與展望。人文與社會科學簡訊。 12 （1），128-135。
Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (2004). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and pedagogy. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier, (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 1-11). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Asher, N. & Pustejovsky, J. (2006). A type composition logic for generative lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 1–38.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Langauge and Information)
Barlow. M (2000). Usage, Blends, and Grammar. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 315-345). Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Langauge and Information)
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI
Boas, H. C. (2003). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113-144.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2006) Cognitive linguistics application in second or foreign language instruction Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. R. de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Current Applications and Future Perspectives (pp. 305-355). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008a). From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 375-394). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008b). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 1-64). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction In S. de Knop, F. Boers & A. de Rycker (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp.1-28). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60(3), 534-572.
Boulton, A. (2012). Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In J. Thomas and A. Boulton (Eds.), Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. (pp.152-168). Brno: Masaryk University Press.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 418-429.
Broccias, C. (2008). Cognitive linguistic theories of grammar and grammar teaching. In S. de Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar—A Volume in Honour of René Dirven (pp.67-90). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109-132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602-623). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 711-733.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson and N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216-236). New York: Routledge.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of construction grammar (pp.49-69). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of 'becoming. Language, 82(2), 323-355.
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In N. A. Ritter (Ed.), The Role of Linguistics in Cognitive Science, Special Issue of The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381-410.
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508.
Chang, S‐C. (2011). A Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in Teaching English Grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2). 13‐24.
Chao, Y. R. (1955). On Chinese Grammar and Logic. Philosophy East and West, 5 (2), 167-168.
Chu, Chauncey C. (1993). The prototypicality of topic in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 33(1), 25–48.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In M. Fried, and J-O. O ̈stman (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-language dimensions (pp. 273-314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2014). Comparing categories and constructions crosslinguistically (again): The diversity of ditransitives. Linguistic Typology, 18, 533-551.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-. based analysis of German ditransitive. phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop, & G. Gilquin (Eds), Applied Construction Grammar. (pp.53-88). Berlin/Boston: De Guyter.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules: An Experiment with a Miniature Linguistic System. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
Ellis, N. (2013). Construction Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of construction grammar (pp.365-378). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the Interface: Dynamic Interactions of Explicit and Implicit Language Knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective Attention and Transfer Phenomena in L2 Acquisition: Contingency, Cue Competition, Salience, Interference, Overshadowing, Blocking, and Perceptual Learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164-194.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 216-236). John Wiley & Sons. John Wiley & Sons.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of constructions. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Cognitive and discourse approaches to language and language learning (pp. 93-120). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira–Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370-385.
Ellis, R. (1992). Second Language Acquisition & Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating Form-focused Instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language: A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner Uptake in Communicative ESL Lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a Central Process of Grammar, In Adele E. Goldberg (Eds). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 113-130). Stanford: Center for the Study of Langauge and Information (CSLI).
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language. In S. R. Harnad, H. D. Steklis, & J. B. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech. (pp. 20-32). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538.
Flowerdew, L. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories: Whither the twain shall meet. In A. Leńko-Szymańska, & A. Boulton (Eds.) Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning (pp. 15-36). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Gilquin, G. and Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching? In A. O’Keefee, & M. McCarthy (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.359-370). London and New York: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 1(3), 1-22.
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197-215). New York: Routledge.
Gries, S., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182-200.
Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Eds.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: an enquiry into the language of William Golding's 'The Inheritors'. In S. Chatman (Eds), Literary Style: A Symposium (pp. 330-365). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp. 19-40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and construction grammar. Cognitive and psychological issues. [Special issue: Linguistics creativity] Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259-276.
Hoffmann, T. (2019). Language and creativity: a Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1), 0-0.
Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K. (2003). Individuals, kinds, and events: classifier coercion of nouns. Language Sciences 25.4:353–373
Israel, M. (1996). The Way Constructions Grow. In A. Goldberg (Eds.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217-230). Stanford: CSLI.
Jacobson, R. (1956). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jacobson, & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of Language (pp.76-82). Gravenhage: Mouton & Co.
Jin, H. G. (1994). Topic-prominence and subject-prominence in L2 acquisition: Evidence of English-to-Chinese typological transfer. Language Learning, 44, 101-122.
Kuo, L.-H. (2013). Improving implicit learning and explicit instruction of adult and children learner of Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1). Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn. (Eds.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds), Usage-based Models of Language (pp.1–63). Stanford: CSLI.
Langacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008b). The relevance of cognitive grammar for language pedagogy. In S. de Knop, & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar—A Volume in Honour of René Dirven (pp. 7-36). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
LaPolla, R. J. (2009). Chinese as a Topic-Comment (Not Topic-Prominent and Not SVO) Language. In Janet Xing (Eds.), Studies of Chinese Linguistics: Functional Approaches, (pp. 9-22). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Lauwers, P. & Willems, D. (2001). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219-1235.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lin, T.-H. J., & C.-Y. C. Liu. (2005). Coercion, event structure, and syntax. Nanzan Linguistics, 2, 9-31.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Liu, M.-C. (2005). Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion and constructional inferences of Mandarin verb GAN. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 33(2), 310–332.
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.341-371). New York/ London: Routledge.
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction. In E.J. Francis, & L.A. Michaelis, (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar (pp.259-310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1-67.
Michaelis, L. A. (2005). Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45-88), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. A. (2011). Stative by Construction. Linguistics, 49, 1359-1400.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mukherjee, J. (2005). English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. In C. Mair, C. F. Meyer, & N. Oostdijk (Eds.), Language and Computers. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. MA: Harvard University Press.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54-65.
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2009). Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In: K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U.& Thornburg, L.L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de, 6, 91-116.
Peng, F.-Y. (2015).The effectiveness of explicit instruction versus implicit instruction method on Chinese grammar acquisition. Unpublished master thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). Linguistic constraints on type coercion. In P. Saint-Dizier, & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp.71–97). Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G., & Z. Kovecses. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Radford, A. (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robison, P. & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistic and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (Ed.). Evidence. Experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language (pp. 15-26). Bern: Peter Lang.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Sosa, A. V., & MacFarlane, J. (2002). Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of. Brain and Language, 83(2), 227-236.
Su, D., & Tao, H. (2018). Teaching the shi…de construction with authentic materials in elementary Chinese. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 111-140.
Su, Lily I-wen. (2002). Why a Construction – That is the Question!. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 28 (2): 27-42.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Eds.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 36-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1996). The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 235-238). Oxford: OUP.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics.Vol.1 & 2. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press
Teng, S.-H. (1974). Double nominatives in Chinese. Language, 50(3), 455–73.
Tode, T. (2008). Effects of Frequency in Classroom Second Language Learning: Quasi-Experiment and Stimulated-Recall Analysis. Pieterlen/ Bern: Peter Lang.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. London: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2010). Dialogic motivations for syntactic change. In R. A. Cloutier, A. M. Hamilton-Brehm, & W. Kretschmar (Eds.), Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon (pp. 11-27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, E. C., & R. B. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (pp. 19-44). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsao, F. F. (1979). A functional study of topic in Chinese: The first step towards discourse. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Tsou, B. K. (2012). Idiomaticity and Classical Traditions in Some East Asian Languages. In R. Manurung, & F. Bond (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 26) (pp. 39-55). Bali, Indonesia: Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York: NY: Routledge.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd Ed.). London/ New York: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vyatkina, N. (2020). Corpora as open educational resources for language teaching. Foreign Language Annal, 53(2), 359-370.
Ziegler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (5), 990-1028.