- روشن، بلقیس (1377). معنیشناسی واژگانی: طبقهبندی فعلهای فارسی، پایان نامه دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
- صفری، علی (1395). «تناوب مکانی در زبان فارسی: رویکردی ساخت‌مدار»، نشریه پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی. ش11.
- صفری، علی (1397). «تظاهر چندگانة موضوعات در زبان فارسی: بررسی نقش «را» و خوانش کلی در تناوب مکانی»، فصلنامة مطالعات زبان‌ها و گویش‌های غرب ایران، س 6، ش 20: 67-89.
- قانع، زهرا و رضایی، والی (1396). «تناوب مکانی در افعال گذاشتنی زبان فارسی: رویکردی نقشگرا»، مجلة زبانشناسی و گویش‌های خراسان، ش 17: 1-19.
- کریمیدوستان، غلامحسین و صفری، علی (1390). «اثر کلی/ جزئی در تناوب مکانی زبان فارسی»، پژوهشهای زبانی، س 3، ش 1: 77-100.
- Anderson, Stephen R (1971). “On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation”. Foundations of Language 7: 387–96.
- Boas, Hans C (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
- Boas, Hans C (2006). A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In Contrastive studies and valency: studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, ed. Petra C. Steiner, Hans C. Boas, and Stefan J. Schierholz, 119–49. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
- Croft, William (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Croft, William (1998c). The structure of events and the structure of language. In The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. Michael Tomasello, 67–92. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Croft, William (2003b). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Motivation in language: studies in honour of Gu ¨nter Radden, ed. Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene ´ Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Croft, William (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structue. Oxford University Press, New York.
- Croft, William. Chiaki Taoka, and Esther J. Wood (2001). “Argument linking and the commercial Transaction Frame in English, Russian and Japanese” Languages Sciences 23, 570-602.
- Dang, Trang Hoa, Karen Kipper, Martha Palmer, and Joseph Rosenzweig (1998). Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective Levin classes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING_ACL), Vol. 1, 293–99. Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Dowty, David (2000). The garden swarms with bees and the fallacy of argument alternation. In Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches, ed. 111–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Fillmore, Charles J (1968). The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–90. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
- Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Abby Wright (2003). “FrameNet in action: the case of attaching”. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 297–332.
- Givo´n, Talmy (2001). Syntax: an introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg.
- Goldberg, Adele E (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Goldberg, Adele E (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Iwata, Seizi (2005a). “Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning”. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 355- 407.
- Iwata, Seizi (2005b). The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In Grammatical constructions: back to the roots, ed. Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 101–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Iwata, Seizi (2008). Locative alternation: a lexical-constructional approach. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 6.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Jackendoff, Ray (1997). “Twisting the night away”. Language, 73: 534-59.
- Kay, Paul (1999). “Argument structure constructions and argument - adjunct distinction.” First international conference on Construction Grammar, University of California, Berkley.
- Langacker, Ronald (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Langacker, Ronald (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Langaker, Ronald (2002). Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Levin, Beth (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago, CA.
- Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005). Argument Realization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Perek, F (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin (1998). Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
- Schwartz Norman, l (1976). “The grammar of content and container”. Journal of Linguistics, 12: 279-287.
- Talmy, Leonard (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
- Talmy, Leonard (1976). Semantic causative types in The grammar of causative constructions. (Syntax and Semantics, 6.), ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.
- Talmy, Leonard (1988/2000). “Force dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science 12:49–100. Revised and expanded version published in Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems, ed. Leonard Talmy, 409–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Tognini Bonlli, E (2001): Corpus Linguistics at Work, (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins).
)