本論文的主要貢獻在於藉由對共時與歷時閩南語語料的分析，建立起義務情態動詞之形成跟語言主觀化（Langacker 1990 and Traugott 1989）的正向關係。雖然以往對情態詞形成與主觀化關係的研究多偏重在由義務情態詞（deontic modal）發展到認識情態詞（epistemic modal）的過程，我們卻發現義務情態動詞的形成本身也受到與形成認識情態詞類似的語意−語用因素影響，也就是一樣循著從具體客觀的概念延伸到抽象內在心理世界之主觀化機制進行演變。
本文所討論的義務情態動詞一共有三種，而此三者於閩南語的義務情態系統中都是晚近才發展出來的。這三個義務情態動詞分別是：義務情態動詞「著」(記為tioh8）與「愛」（記為ai3）、以及義務情態複合動詞組「會使(得)」（記為e7-sai2 (-tit4)）與「會用(得)」（記為e7-ing7(-tit4)）。要發展出這些義務情態動詞的先決條件是，在語意上前情態詞（premodal）必須先獲得於義務情態詞語意中決定性的成分，亦即Talmy（2000）所主張之語意中的「力量」（本文記為[FORCE] ）。對於義務情態動詞「著」與「愛」來說，此語意中的「力量」在他們的發展過程裡，皆由其前情態詞所選擇的三個論元之關係得到支持，儘管此三個論元並非一定會由底層語意投射到表層的句法上去。而相對來說，主表允讓的義務情態複合動詞組「會使(得)」或「會用(得)」所涉之力，卻是來自於該結構中被包夾的基層動詞組成成分「使」或「用」，而此表允讓的義務情態複合動詞組本身、則是經由吸引基層動詞組之主要語向上移動並與動後情態動詞「得」（tit4）結合而來的。基層動詞組的語意成分可以與情態詞「會」的語意成分結合，並投射成為整個義務情態複合動詞組的語意內容的原因，主要是由於基層動詞主要語藉由與「得」的融合(incorporate)，也與「得」形成情態重疊(modal doubling)的情態詞「會」變成一個整體，因此其兩者之語意特徵便可以互相結合、影響、與互動。
上述三個義務情態動詞（結構）的發展過程中，語意中的「力量」成分都被保留了下來，然而該「力量」成分的呈現方式卻改變了：原本前情態詞的「力量」成分是由語意中施動者（CAUSER）與受動者（CAUSEE）的互動關係所傳達，但爾後於義務情態動詞（結構）中卻是由說話者跟句子主語的關係所隱示。也就是說，前情態詞的語意中原具的「力量」成分，在義務情態（結構）中卻轉換成了語意−語用層面的關係。如此一來，我們對於義務情態的形成跟主觀化有密切關係的假設，便可以得到證明。
從本文幾個閩南語義務情態動詞（結構）形成的過程，可以得到兩個啟發。首先，義務情態詞不只是認識情態詞「較客觀」的對照，其本身也是前情態詞「較主觀」的對應。前情態詞可以是與義務情態動詞帶有類似語意成分關係的動詞、或是表主語客觀能力的動力情態詞（dynamic modals）。這個假設的結果是單一語言內部的整個情態詞系統會組成一個連續體，而此連續體便是依主觀化程度的不同而開展的；另外，於此連續體上模糊分類的（categorized with fuzzy boundaries）情態詞，皆一致地受到類似的語用因素驅動而發生語言變化。第二，閩南語義務情態詞的形成過程也證明了語意成分間的關係可以在語言發展上轉換成語意−語用層面或是純粹語用層面的關係，而在此轉換中成分間的互動仍然維持不變。換句話說，前情態詞的語意成分在語法化的過程中並沒有消失，而是改變他們的呈現方式、使增加的語用表達性獲得強化（Lehmann 1985）。
本文從認知語言學的觀點出發，輔以語法化研究對歷時與共時語料的詮釋與說明，期能將情態詞形成過程中與認知語用層面相關聯的部分呈現出來。我們證明了，義務情態詞的形成，需要建立在一致的認知語意概念上面，而轉換的過程也會受到語用因素的觸發與影響，尤其是主觀化的因素。

In this dissertation we aim to build a positive relationship between the emergence of deontic modal verbs and the effect of subjectification (Langacker 1990 and Traugott 1989) through the exploration of diachronic and synchronic materials of Southern Min. While researchers interested in the effect of subjectification in the process of modal emergence tend to emphasize on the evolution from deontic to epistemic modals (e.g. Sweetser 1990), we focus on the effect of subjectification, i.e. the subjective semantic-pragmatic factors, in the emergence of deontic modals.
Three deontic modals are discussed in this dissertation, and all of them are quite new compared to other deontic modals in the history in Southern Min. The three of them are obligative modal tioh8, obligative modal ai3, and permissive modal e7-sai2 (-tit4) or e7-ing7(-tit4). To emerge those deontic modals, the premodals must acquire the decisive semantic force, annotated as [FORCE], of the deontic modals. The [FORCE] of the former two modals tioh8 and ai3 is donated by verbs which allow three arguments in underlying semantics and sometimes in overt syntax; contrastively, the [FORCE] of the permissive modal construction is projected by the infixed base verb which is assumed to raise from the lower structural position to incorporate with the postverbal modal tit4.
Based on Talmy (2000), the [FORCE] of the premodals can be preserved in the later-developed deontic modals because premodal with [FORCE] and deontic modals are conceptually similar, and during the evolution what is changed is not the [FORCE] itself but the representation of the [FORCE]. For premodals the [FORCE] is expressed through the interaction between CAUSER and CAUSEE, while for deontic modals, the [FORCE] changes to show the interaction between the speaker and the grammatical subject. That is to say, where the [FORCE] applies changes from semantic domain to semantic-pragmatic domain. The change of application domain proves that emergence of deontic modals is motivated by the effect of subjectification.
There are two implications given from the findings above. First, deontic modals are not only the ‘objective’ counterpart of epistemic modals, but also the subjective counterparts of their premodals. The consequence of this assumption is that the whole modal system of a given language is built along a continuous cognitive continuum based on the degree of being subjectivized, and modals within the modal system are not discrete items, but are categorized with fuzzy boundaries and may interact with each other in feature composition or in evolution. Second, from the emergence of deontic modals in Southern Min it is proved that the application domains of the meaning components can extend from pure semantic to semantic-pragmatic without changing the original interactive relationship. In other words, the semantic contents of the premodals are not canceled during grammaticalization, but change in their ways of representation to enhance the acquired pragmatic expressivity (Lehmann 1985).
In this dissertation, we set out to explore the relationship between subjectivity and the emergence of deontic modal based on empirical datum. The result of this study shows that at least in Southern Min, the emergence of deontic modal verbs is positively related with the degree of subjectification. In other words, similar to the emergence of epistemic modals, the emergence of deontic modals is also motivated and influenced by semantic-pragmatic factors. This makes all modals within a modal system constitute a continuum, along which all modals can be motivated to change under the impact of similar subjective factors.

Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 2006. Middles. In Martin Everanrt and Henk van Riensdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol.3.
Aissen, Judith. 1979. The Syntax of Causative Constructions. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Aissen, Judith and David Perlmutter. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. In J. Hankamer and J. L. Aissen (eds.) Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. II. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Akmajian, Adrian, Susuan M. Steele & Thomas Wasow. 1979. The category AUX in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 1-64.
Aristotle. 1933. Metaphysics. Translated by H. Tredennick. London: Heinemann.
Baltin, Mark R. 1991. Head movement in logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 22.2: 225-249.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Lilian Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 73-137.
Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Modality and polarity. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Linguistics Today Vol. 47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 51-73.
Barbiers, Sjef and Rint Sybesma. 2004. On the different behavior of auxiliaries. Lingua 114: 389-398.
Bell, Sarah Joanna. 1976. Cebuano Subjects in Two Frameworks, Ph. D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Belletti Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (eds.). 1996. Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berlin, B. & P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beukema, Frits and Wim van der Wurff. 2002. Modals, objects and negation in late Middle English. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Linguistics Today Vol. 47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75-102.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenachaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtsag von Hansjakob Seiler. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 145). Tübinger: Gunter Narr, pp. 292-99.
Boslovic, Zeljko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5.3: 167-218.
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.151-190.
Brennan, Virginia. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Brettschneider, Gunter & Christian Lehmann (eds.) 1980. Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenachaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtsag von Hansjakob Seiler. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 145). Tübinger: Gunter Narr.
Brinton, Laurel. 1995. Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, eds. by Dieter Stein and Susan Wright, 173-194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen (1987). Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Jonny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967-996.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government Binging Approach. Reidel: Dordrecht.
Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguisitcs. Trans. and eds. by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London and New York: Routledge.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 247-64.
Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 59-83.
Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds.) Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109-122.
Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca and Revere D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticali- zation. Vol. II. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.17-58.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1992. The grammatical- ization of tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Typescript. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompsom (eds.). 1997. Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Capell, A. 1976. Simple and compound verbs: conjugation by auxiliaries in Australian verbal systems. Rapporteur’s introduction and summary. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistic Series, 22.), ed. by R.M.W. Dixon, 615-25. New Jersey, USA: Hukanities Press Inc.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. dissertation in Linguistics. [published 1980 by Garland].
Carlson, Gregory N. & F. J. Pelletier (eds.). 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Cao, Guangshun [曹廣順].1995. 《近代漢語方言助詞》,北京: 語文出版社.
Cao, Guangshun [曹廣順].1986. 〈祖堂集中的“底(地)” “卻(了)” “著”〉,《中國語文》3: 192-202.
Chang, Jung-hsing [張榮興](ed). 2011. Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H.Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday. Taipei: Crane Publishing Ltd.
Chang, Miao-Hsia. 1999. Discourse and grammaticalization: a synchronic study of Taiwanese modal verb BEH. In Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chang, Miao-Hsia. 2009. Metaphorization and metonymization: diachronic development of verbs of volition in Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 7.1: 53-84.
Chen, Bijia[陳碧加]. 2001. 〈漳台閩南方言研究〉,《閩南方言:漳州話研究》, 漳州師範學院閩南方言研究室編, 北京: 中國文聯出版社.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., James Huang, Audrey Li, and Jane Tang. 1996. Hoo, hoo, hoo: the
causative, passive, and dative in Taiwanese. In Pang-Hsin Ting (ed.), Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph 14), 146-203.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Rint Sybesma. 2004. Poseverbal ‘can’ in Cantonese (and Hakka) and Agree. Lingua 114: 419-445.
Cheng, Ying [鄭縈]. 2003. 從方言比較看情態詞的歷史演變. 台灣語文研究 1.1: 107-143. [A study on the diachronic development of Chinese modals from the perspective of the dialectal comparison. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature (JTLL) 1.1: 107-143.]
Cheng, Robert L. 1980. Modality in Taiwanese. JCLTA 15:45-93.
Cheng, Robert L [鄭良偉]. 1997. 《台、華語的接觸與語意的互動》,臺北: 遠流出版公司. [Taiwanese and Mandarin Structures and Their Developmental Trends in Taiwan III: Temporal and Spatial Relations, Questions and Negatives in Taiwanese and Mandarin, Taipei:Yuan-Lio Publishing co.]
Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1-46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Bariers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero, and M.-L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133-166.
Chung, Meilien [鍾美蓮]. 2001. 《荔鏡記中的多義詞「著」》,新竹: 清華大學語言所碩士論文.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax Vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.4. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In V. Moscati (ed.), CISCL Working Papers Vol. 2, 43-59.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Coates, Jennifer. 1995. The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Conrad, Rudi. (ed.) 1988. Lexikon Sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
Cormack, Annabel and Neil Smith. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Linguistics Today Vol. 47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 134-163.
Craig, Collette G. 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
Declerck, Renaat. 1984. ‘Pure future’ will in if-clause. Lingua 63: 279-312.
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Denison, David. 1990. Auxiliary and impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139-66.
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.
Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.) 1976. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistic Series, 22.) New Jersey, USA: Hukanities Press Inc.
Dong, Chungszu & Shuxian Cheng & Pingsheng Zhang [董忠司、城淑賢、張屏生]. 2002. 《台灣閩南語辭典》,台北:五南圖書.
Douglas, Rev. Cartairs. 1873. Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy with the Principal Variations of the Chang-chew and
Chin-chew Dialects. London: Trubner and Co.
Duffley, Patrick J. 1994. Need and dare: the blacksheep of the modal family. Lingua 94: 213-243.
Enc, Murvet. 1996. Tense and Modality. In S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 345-358.
Fauconnier, Giles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Giles and Eve Sweetser (eds.) 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Feng, Chuntian[馮春田]. 2000. 《近代漢語語法研究》, 濟南:山東教育出版社.
Finegan Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectification: an introduction. In Stein, Dieter and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-15.
Freed, Alice F. 1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Fu, suhua [傅素花]. 1998.《大安鄉閩南語故事集，一至三冊》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Daan stories in Southern Min. Vol.1-3. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Gibson, Jeanne D. 1992 [1980]. Clause Union in Chamorro and in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s fieldtrip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 394-415.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 1986. Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein. Typological studies in Language, Vol.7: Noun classes and categorization. Proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification. Eugene, Oregon, Oct. 1983, ed. by Craig, C.G. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Greenbaum, S., G. Leech & Y. Svartvik (eds.) 1980. Studies in English Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Universals of Human Language. Volume 3. Standard: Standard University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Theodora Bynon (eds.), Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.145-166.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 2001. Universals of Human Language: Volume 3. Stanford California: Stanford University Press.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole P, Morgan J L (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Speech acts. New York: Academic, pp. 41-58.
Gu, Wanchuan [古萬川]. 1995. 彰化縣民間文學集四:故事篇二. 彰化:彰化縣政府文化局. [Changhua Folk Literatures Vol.4: Story2. Changhua: Cultural Bureau, Changhua County Government.]
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. A cross-linguistic study of Romance and Arberesh causatives. In Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209-238.
Haegeman, Lilian. 1998. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hason. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halpern, Aaron L. 2004. Clitics. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 101-122.
Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 211-242.
Hass, Mary R. 1980. From auxiliary verb phrase to inflectional suffix. In Li, Charles N. (ed), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin and London: University of Texas Press, pp. 525-537.
Heider, E. R. 1972. Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimantal Psychology 93: 10-20.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1995. Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: some observation on German modals. In Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1982. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicage: University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heny, Frank & Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic Categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles. Volume 1: Categories. (Synthese Language Library, 19) Dordrecht, Boston & Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Herring, Susan C. 1991. The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to Grammatical- ization. Volume I. Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hofmann, T. R. 1976. Past tense replacement and the modal system. In McCawley, J.D. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 7, Notes from the linguistic underground. New York: Academic Press.
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, vol.13: 139-157.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I, Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17-35.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994. Passives, Causatives, and Light Verbs: A study on theta role assignment. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Connecticut.
Hsieh, Chialing [謝佳玲]. 2002. 《漢語的情態動詞》, 新竹: 清華大學博士論文.
Hsieh, Chialing [謝佳玲]. 2003〈華語的情態動詞與情態副詞：語意的分類與歸類〉, 世界華文教育學會會編《第七屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集第一冊：語文分析組》55-73.
Hsin, Aili. 1999. Modality in Taiwanese Southern Min. Ph.D. Dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Hsu, Ting-Ting Christina. 2009. ‘Emergence of Chinese sortal classifiers and the interactive model of human categorization’ UST Working Papers in Linguistics 10.5:29-57.
Hsu, Ting-Ting C. 2013. Disambiguating Mandarin polysemous auxiliary yao4 with distinctive features and contrastive dialectal Analysis. Journal of Chinese Lnaguage Teaching 10.1:1-29.
Hu, Wanchuan (ed.) [胡萬川] 編著. 1994a. 《石岡鄉閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Shigang stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan (ed.) [胡萬川] 編著. 1994b. 《沙鹿鎮閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Shalu stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan (ed.) [胡萬川] 編著. 1998. 《苗栗縣閩南語故事集》,苗栗: 苗栗縣立文化中心. [Miaoli stories in Southern Min. Miaoli: Culture Center, Miaoli County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan (ed.) [胡萬川] 編著. 2001. 《台南縣閩南語故事集》一至六冊,台南: 台南縣立文化中心. [Tainan stories in Southern Min. Vol. 1-6. Tainan: Culture Center, Tainan County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Qingwen Huang (eds.) [胡萬川、黃晴文] 編著. 1995. 《大甲鎮閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Dajia stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Qingwen Huang (eds.) [胡萬川、黃晴文] 編著. 1996a. 《清水鎮閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Qingxui stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Qingwen Huang (eds.) [胡萬川、黃晴文] 編著.1996b. 《梧棲鎮閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Wuqi stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Qingwen Huang (eds.) [胡萬川、黃晴文]編著. 1996c. 《新社鄉閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Xinshe stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Yiyuan Chen (eds.) [胡萬川、陳益源] 編著. 1999.《雲林縣閩南語故事集》一至五冊,彰化: 雲林縣立文化中心. [Yunlin stories in Southern Min. Vol. 1-5. Zhanghua: Culture Center, Yunlin County Government]
Hu, Wanchuan & Zhengxiong Wang (eds.) [胡萬川、王正雄]編著. 2000. 《東勢縣閩南語故事集》,台中: 台中縣立文化中心. [Dongshi stories in Southern Min. Taichung: Culture Center, Taichung County Government]
Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. WO PAO DE KUAI and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64-2: 274-311.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 14:53-78.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Restructuring and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1: 103-138.
Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
Jiang, Lansheng [江藍生]. 2000. 〈漢語使役與被動兼用探源〉,《近代漢語探源》,北京:商務印書館.
Jiang, Shaoyu. 1994. 《近代語法研究概要》, 北京:北京大學出版社.
Jiang, Shaoyu. 2009. 〈近代漢語的幾種被動式〉,陝西師範大學學報 (哲學社會科學版) 38.6: 87-92. [Jiang, Shaoyu. 2009. Several passive patterns in Modern Chinese. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 38.6: 87-92.]
Jiang, Shaoyu & Guangshun Cao [蔣紹愚&曹廣順](eds.) 2005.《近代漢語語法史研究綜述》, 北京:商務印書館.
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 2007. Middle voice. Lingua 117: 1677-1714.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Kleiber, G. 1990. La Sémantique du Prototype. Catégories et Sens Lexical. Paris: Presses Iniversitaires de France.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In: H.J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 38-74.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 639-650.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates. In G.Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 125-175.
Kroch, Anthony S. 2003. Syntactic change. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 699-729.
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. N. and R. W. Shuy (eds.), New Ways of Analysing Variation in English. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 340-73.
Lakoff , George .1972. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. CLS 8: 183-228.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1980 (1977). Syntactic reanalysis. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, ed. by Charles N. Li, 58-139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. Iconicity in Syntax, Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24-6, 1983, eds. by John Haiman, 109-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, i, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Larson, Richard K. 1988a. On the Double-object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3:35-91.
Larson, Richard K. 1988b. Light Predicate Raising. Massachusetts: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Larson, Richard K. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22.1:103-139.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jennifer Coates. 1980. Semantic indeterminancy and the modals. In S. Greenbaum et al. (eds.) Studies in English Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 79-90.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2004. In In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 248-271.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 203-18.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Li, Charles N. (ed). 1980. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
Li, Chen-Cheng. 1979. A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Taiwanese Modality. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Hawaii: Hawaii.
Li, Rulong[李如龍]. 2007. 《閩南方言語法研究》, 福建: 福建人民出版社.
Li, Rulong & Rongsong Yao [李如龍、姚榮松]. 2008. 《閩南方言》, 福建: 福建人民出版社.
Li, Shaodan [李少丹]. 2001.〈漳州話與普通話疑問句的異同〉,《閩南方言:漳州話研究》, 漳州師範學院閩南方言研究室編, 北京: 中國文聯出版社.
Lien, Chinfa. 1994. The order of 'Verb-complement' constructions in Taiwan Southern Min. (台灣閩南語'動補'結構的語序) Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies. New Series. 24: 193-215.
Lien, Chinfa. 1997. Aspects of the evolution of tit 得 in Taiwanese Southern Min. In Chaofen Sun (ed.) History of Chinese Syntax, Monograph Series No. 10, Journal of Chinese Linguistics: 167-190.
Lien, Chinfa. 1999. A typological study of causatives in Taiwanese Southern Min. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29: 395-422.
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2000. 〈構詞學問題探索〉,《漢學研究》台灣語言學的創造力專刊18: 61-78.
Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Semantic extension of tioh8 著 in Taiwanese Southern Min: an interactive approach. Language and Linguistics 2.2: 173-202.
Lien, Chinfa. 2003. Coding causatives and putatives in a diachronic perspective. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 1: 1-28.
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2006. 〈荔鏡記動詞分類和動相、格式〉 Language and Linguistics 7.1: 27-61.
Lien, Chinfa. 2007. Grammaticalization of pat4 in Southern Min: a cognitive approach. Language and Linguistics 8.3.: 723-742.
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2008a.〈台語个的研究〉.一步一腳印:鄭良偉教授榮退論文集. 台北: 文鶴出版社. [Lien, Chinfa. ‘E’ in Taiwanese. In Claire Hsun-Huei Chang, Chinfa Lien and Lily Iwen Su (eds.), Step by Step: Papers in honor of Professor Robert Liang-Wei Cheng on the occasion of his retirement. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd., pp. 143-170.]
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2008b.〈台灣閩南語欲求情態和否定的動態分析: 競爭和演變〉. 歷史演變與語言接觸: 中國東南方研國際研討會.香港: 香港中文大學.
Lien, Chinfa. 2009. The Focus Marker si7 是 and Lexicalization of Si7 Mih8 是乜 into What Wh-words in Earlier Southern Min Texts. Language and Linguistics 10.4: 745-764.
Lien, Chinfa. 2010. Middles in Taiwanese Southern Min: The Interface of lexical meaning and event structure. Lingua.120.5: 1273-1287.
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2010.〈臺灣閩南語欲求情態和否定的動態分析;競爭和演變〉,《歷時演變與語言接觸:中國東南方言》, 張洪年&張雙慶（主編）,香港:香港中文大學出版社, pp.68-88.
Lien, Chinfa. 2011. Interface of modality and the tit4 得construction in Southern Min: a case study of their developments from earlier Southern Min in the Ming and Qing to Modern Taiwanese Southern Min. Language and Linguistics 12.4: 723-752.
Lien, Chinfa [連金發]. 2013. Negative patterns of modals in Taiwanese Southern Min. Language and Linguistics 14.2: 213-239.
Lightfoot David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot David W. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lightfoot David W. and Norbert Hornstein (eds.) 1994. Verb Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lin, Jowang and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1995. Modals as Verbs in Chinese: a GB perspective. The Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology 66: 53-105.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2006. Multiple-Modal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese and Their Finiteness Properties. Ms, National Tsing Hua Univrsity.
Lin, Xinping [林新年]. 2006. 《祖唐集的動態助詞研究》, 上海: 上海三聯書店.
Liu, Jian (ed.) [劉堅] 編著. 1985. 《近代漢語讀本》,上海: 上海教育出版社.
Liu, Jian, Lanshen Jiang, Weiguo Bai, and Guangshun Cao (eds.) [劉堅,江藍生,白維國,曹廣順] 著. 1992. 《近代漢語虛詞研究》,北京: 語文出版社. [Studies of Functional Words in Modern Chinese. Peking: Language & Culture Press.]
Long, Guofu [龍國富]. 2006. 〈從中古譯經看形成中的動態助詞 “著”〉,《漢語史研究輯刊(第九輯)》, 四川大學漢語史研究所編, 成都:巴蜀書社.
Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lu, Zhuo-qun [盧卓群]. 1997.〈助動詞“要”漢代起源說〉,《古漢語研究》,1997第3期,45-48.
Lü, Shuxiang [呂叔湘]. 2001 (1940). 〈釋景德傳燈錄中「在」、「著」兩助詞〉,《漢語語法論文集》,頁1-11。
Lü, Shuxiang [呂叔湘]. 1980. 《現代漢語八百詞》, 北京:商務印書館.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity. Loquor ergo sum? Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, eds. by Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 101-24. New York: John Wiley.
Lyons, John. 1995. Lingistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manzini, Maria Rita. 1979. Restructuring and Reanalysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
Marcheese, Lynell. 1986. Tense/aspect and the development of auxiliaries in Kru languages. Arlington: The Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37-1: 69-109.
Mei, Zhulin [梅祖麟]. 1998. 〈漢語方言虛詞裏「著」字三種用法的來源〉,《中國語言學報》3: 193-216.
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des forms grammaticales. SCientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12, No. 26, 6. Reprinted in Meillet 1958, 130-48.
Meillet, Antoine. 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847-95.
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ota, Tatsuo [太田辰夫]. 2005 (1958). 中國語歷史文法. 北京: 北京大學出版社. [Ota, Tatsuo. 2005. Translated by Jiang, Shaoyu and Changhua Xu. A Historical Grammar of Modern Chinese. Peking: Peking University Press.]
Palmer, Frank. R. 1974. The English Verb. London: Longman.
Palmer, Frank. R. 1979. Why auxiliaries are not main verbs. Lingua 47:1-25.
Palmer, Frank. R. 1983. Semantic explanations for the syntax of the English modals. In F. Heny & B. Richards (eds.), Linguistic Categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles. Volume 1: Categories. (Synthese Language Library, 19) Dordrecht, Boston & Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp.205-17.
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and English Modals. New York: Longman.
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Frank R. 2003. Modality in English: theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in English: theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-17.
Papafragou, Anna. 1998. Inference and word meaning. Lingua 105: 1-47.
Perlmutter, David. 1970. The two verbs begin. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Massachusetts:
Waltham, 107-119.
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
Peng, Lizhen [彭利貞]. 2007. 《現代漢語情態研究》, 北京: 中國社會科學出版社.
Peyraube, Alain. 1999. On the Modal Auxiliaries of Possibility in Classical Chinese. In Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co, 27-52.
Peyraube, Alain. 2001. On the modal auxilaries of volition in Classical Chinese. In H. Chappell (ed.), Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172-188.
Piñón, Christopher. 1997. Achievements in event sematntics. In Aaron Lawson (ed.), SALT VII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, pp. 276-293.
Plank, Frans. 1981. Modalitätsausdruck zwischen Autonomie und Auxiliarität. In I. Rosengren (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Synposium 1980. Lund: CWK Gleerup, pp. 57-71.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3: 365-424.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Deirdre Wilson. 1977. Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53: 741-88.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Compre- hensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman Group Limited.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30.1: 147-155.
Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 1998. The Limits of Grammaticali- zation. Typological Studies in Language vol. 37. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 281-337.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and the Left Periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 223-251.
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27-48.
Rothstein, S. 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21-58.
Roberts, Ian. 1994. Two types of head movement in Romance. In David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Verb Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207-242.
Roberts, Ian. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28.3: 423-460.
Roberts, Ian. 2003. Head Movement. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 113-147.
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E. (ed.) 1973. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimantal psychology: General 104: 192-233.
Rosengren, Inger (ed.) 1971. Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Synposium 1980. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Ross, J. R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd, ed. Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, Series I. Evanston: Great Expectations.
Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud.1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97-202.
Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer. 2004. Morphology and argument structure. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 206-236.
Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shepherd, Susan C. 1982. From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition. In A. Ahlqvist (ed.) Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.316-23.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Theodora Bynon (eds.). 1995. Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Steele, Susan. 1978. The category AUX as a language universal. In. Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language: Volume 3. Stanford California: Stanford University Press, pp. 7-45.
Stein, Dieter and Susan Wright. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stowell, Tim. Tense and modals. In Jacqueline Gueron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 621-635.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies of Linguistics 30.1: 19-40.
Su, Lily I-wen and Kai-Yuan Cheng. 2011. From subjectification to intersubjecti- fication: a cognitive-pragmatic analysis of hedging expression. In Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H.Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday, 85-100.
Sun, Chaofen. 1997. Revisit the functions and source of particle着. Zhongguo Yuwen 257: 139-146.
Tai, James H.-Y. & Lianqing Wang. 1990. A semantic study of the classifier tiao. JCLTA 25:1, pp.35-56.
Talmy, Leonard. 1981. Force dynamics. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Mental Imagery, May, 1981, University of California at Berkeley.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 2, pp. 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tang, C-.C. Jane. 2001. Functional Projections and Adverbial Expressions in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 2: 203-241.
Tang, Sze-Wing. 2002. Focus and DAK in Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 30.2: 266-309.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tang, Tingchi [湯廷池]. 1979. 《國語語法研究論集》, 台灣: 學生書局.
Tang, Tingchi [湯廷池]. 1988. 〈國語的助動詞〉,《漢語詞法句法論集》, 台灣: 學生書局.
Tang, Tingchi [湯廷池]. 1999a. 《國語語法研究論集》, 台灣: 學生書局.
Tang, Tingchi [湯廷池]. 1999b. 《閩南語語法研究試論》, 台灣: 學生書局.
Tang, Tingchi & Chihchen Jane Tang & Mingli Chiu [湯廷池、湯志真、邱明麗]. 1997. 〈閩南語的「動貌詞」與「動相詞」〉,《橋本萬太郎紀念中國語學論集》余靄芹、遠藤光曉共編, 東京:內山書店.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1980. The semantics and syntax of modal verbs in Amoy. JCLTA 15: 33-44.
Teng, Shuohsin [鄧守信]. 1984. 《漢語及物性的語意研究》, 台灣: 學生書局.
Teng, Shuohsin [鄧守信]. 2005. 《漢語語法論文集》, 台灣: 三民書局.
Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D Dissertaion, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Travis, Lisa. 1988. The syntax of adverbs. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Department of Linguistics, McGill University, pp. 280-310.
Traugott, Elizabeth [Closs]. 1965. Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41: 402-15.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic- pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 245-71.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 406-16.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of Subjectification in semantic change. Language 3.1: 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Grammaticali- zation. Vol. I. Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Grammaticali- zation. Vol. II. Focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-54.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: the case of promise and threaten. In T. Swan and and O. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.185-210.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed). Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.124-142.
Trithart, M. 1977. Relational Grammar and Chichewa Subjectification. Ph.D. Dissertation. UCLA, Los, Angeles.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2009. Actuality Entailments and Topography of Chinese Modals. Paper presented at The Seventh GLOW in Asia, English and Foreign Languages
University, Hyderabad, India.
Tsai, Weitien Dylan [蔡維天]. 2010.〈談漢語模態詞的分布與詮釋之對應關係〉，《中國語文》,2010第3期,208-221.
Tsao, Feng-fu, Yuzhao Yu, and Yuanpei Tseng [曹逢甫,余玉照,曾淵培] (eds.) 1985. 《文馨當代英漢字典》, 台北:文馨出版社. [Wen Shin Contemporary English- Chinese Dictionary, Taipei: Wen Shin Bookstore.]
Tsao, Feng‑fu. 1982. How often: Wangwang and Changchang in Chinese. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 6. pp. 73‑79.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1988. The functions of Mandiarin Gei and Taiwanese Hou in the double object and passive constructions. In Huang, Shuan-fan and Robert L. Cheng (eds.) The structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., 165-208.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Tsao,Fengfu [曹逢甫]. 1995.〈國台語動詞組內某些結構的對比分析〉,《第二屆台灣語言學研討會論文集(閩語篇)》. 新竹:清華大學.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1996. On Verb Classification in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 24.1: 138-191.
Tsao, Fengfu [曹逢甫]. 1996.〈漢語的提升動詞〉,《中國語文》3: 172-182.
Tsao, Fengfu [曹逢甫]. 1998.〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞「有」「」和「啊」試析〉,《清華學報》新28-3:299-334.
Tsao,Fengfu & Ying Cheng [曹逢甫、鄭縈]. 1995. 〈談閩南語「有」的五種用法及其間的關係〉,《中國語文研究》11: 155-167.
Tsao,Fengfu & Chinfa Lien & Ying Cheng & Penying Wang [曹逢甫、連金發、鄭縈、王本瑛]. 2002. 〈新竹閩南語正在進行中的四個趨同變化〉, 丁邦新、張雙慶主編, 《閩語研究及其周邊方言的關係》, 香港：香港中文大學出版社, 頁221-232.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Van der Loon, Piet. 1967 The Manila incunabula and early Hokkien studies.
(Part 2). Asia Major 13: 95-186.
von Fintal, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. 2007. Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38.3: 445-483.
Wang, Li [王力]. 1989.《漢語語法史》.北京:商務印書館.
Wang, Li [王力]. 2011(1958).《漢語史稿》.北京:中華書局.
Wang, Li et al.. [王力等編] (eds). 2003.《王力古漢語字典》.北京:中華書局.
Wang, William S-Y. 1965. Two aspect markers in Mandarin. Language 41: 457-470.
Warner, Anthony. 1983. Review article on David Lightfoot, Principles on Diachronic Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 19: 187-209.
Wittgenstein, L. 1978. Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wu, Ching-Huei Teresa. 2004. On de/bu and the syntactic nature of resultative verbal compounding. Language and Linguistics 5.1: 271-329.
Wu, Fuxiang [吳福祥]. 1996. 《敦煌變文語法研究》,長沙:嶽麓書社.
Wu, Fuxiang [吳福祥]. 2003.《〈朱子語類輯略〉語法研究》, 河南: 河南大學出版社.
Wu, Fuxiang [吳福祥]. 2005. 《漢語語法化研究》,北京:商務印書館.
Wu, Fuxiang [吳福祥]. 2005. 〈漢語能性述補結構「V得/不C」的語法化〉,吳福祥編《漢語語法化研究》頁219-244.
Wu, Shouli [吳守禮]. 1995. 《閩臺方言研究集．1》, 臺北: 南天書局.
Wu, Shouli [吳守禮]. 1998. 《閩臺方言研究集．2》, 臺北: 南天書局.
Wu, Shouli [吳守禮]. 2001a. 《明嘉靖刊荔鏡記戲文校理》, 臺北: 從宜工作室.
Wu, Shouli [吳守禮]. 2001b. 《明萬曆刊荔枝記戲文校理》, 臺北: 從宜工作室.
Wu, Shouli [吳守禮]. 2001c. 《清光緒刊荔枝記戲文校理》, 臺北: 從宜工作室.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen & P. Norquest(eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, 599-612.
Xing, Xin [邢欣]. 2004. 《現代漢語兼語式》, 北京: 北京廣播學院出版社.
Xiong, Zhongru [熊仲儒]. 2006. 《現代漢語中的致使句式》, 安徽: 安徽大學出版社.
Wurmbrand, Susi. and Jonathan D. Bobaljik. 1999. Modals, raising and A- Reconstruction. Talk given at Leiden University (Oct. 1999) & University of Salzburg (Dec. 1999).
Yang, Bojun & Leshi He [楊伯峻&何樂士]. 1992. 《古漢語語法及其發展》.北京:語文出版社.
Yang, Hsiaofang [楊秀芳]. 1991. 《台灣閩南語語法稿》, 台北:大安出版社.
Yang, Hsiaofang [楊秀芳]. 1992. 〈從歷史語法的觀點論閩南語「著」及持續貌〉,《漢學研究》10-1: 349-94.
Yue , Anne O. & Mitsuaki Endo [余靄芹、遠藤光曉]編. 1997. 《橋本萬太郎紀念中
國語學論集》, 東京:內山書店.
Yu, Szu-I Sylvia. 2007. Semantics of Modal Verbs in Chinese: A Dialectal Perspective. Ph.D Dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Yue-Hashimoto, Anne O. 1993. Comparative Chinese Dialectal Grammar: Handbook for Investigators. Paris: Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences socials, centre de recherches linguistiques sur l’Asie orientale.
Zagona, Karen. 2007. On the syntactic features of epistemic and root modals. In Luis Eguren and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.), Coference, Modality, and Focus. Linguistics Today Vol. 111. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Zagona, Karen. 2008. Phasing in modals: phases and the epistemic/root distinction.In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), Time and Modality. Paris: Springer.
Zhang, Cheng [張赬]. 2002.《漢語介詞詞組詞序的歷史演變》,北京: 北京語言文化大學出版社. [The Historical Evolution of the Word-order of prepositional phrases in Chinese. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.]
Zhang, Henry Yungli [張永利]. 1991. 《漢語帶「得」字的結果結構》, 碩士論文, 國立清華大學語言學研究所, 台灣.
Zhang, Meilan [張美蘭]. 2003. 《祖唐集語法研究》,北京: 商務印書館.
Zhang, Xiang [張相]. 1955. 《詩詞曲語辭匯釋》,北京: 中華書局.
Zhang, Zhenxing [張振興]. 1983. 《台灣閩南方言記略》,福建: 福建人民出版社.
Zheng, Hong [鄭宏]. 2006. 〈近代漢語「著」字被動句及其在現代漢語方言中的分佈〉,《語文研究》2: 40-44.
Zhu, Dexi [朱德熙]. 1984. 《語法講義》, 北京:商務印書館.
Zhu, Minche [祝敏徹]. 1991 《朱子語類句法研究》,湖北: 長江文藝出版社.
Zhu, Minche [祝敏徹]. 2007.〈「得」字用法演變考〉,《祝敏徹漢語史論文集》, 北京: 中華書局.
Zubizarreta, M. L. 1985. The relation between morphology and morphosyntax: the case of romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 247-289.