R-A-C-C架构：《圣经》隐喻阐释的语用认知研究
|
摘要
《圣经》不仅是基督教的一部圣典,同时也是西方文明的文化基础和文学基础。20世纪中叶以来,人们开始将《圣经》从整体上看作是一部伟大的文学著作,并在西方形成了一门新的研究学科。20世纪后半叶,在西方开始形成用文学批评理论和手段来阐释《圣经》的热潮。《圣经》研究中重要的一个方面是针对圣经隐喻(包括寓言故事)的研究。隐喻可以说是《圣经》中最常见的一种语言现象,它贯穿于《圣经》的新约和旧约。国内外专门针对圣经隐喻的研究大多是在文学和文化维度上进行的。从认知语言学和语用学的层面上对圣经隐喻进行专门研究,目前国内外并不多见。
本研究是基于以下假设而展开:圣经隐喻是一种特殊的语言现象,同时也是言语交际活动的一种特殊形式。这一假设为从认知语言学和语用学视角研究圣经隐喻现象提供了可能。该研究以语用学中的关联理论(RT)和顺应理论(AT)以及认知语言学中的概念隐喻理论(CMT)和概念整合理论(CBT)为理论基础,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,试图创建一个R-A-C-C架构,此架构可以作为圣经隐喻阐释的理论框架。
R-A-C-C架构的创建,主要是基于以下理论对比:第一,目前国内外还没有一个相对理想化的理论和应用架构,来阐释圣经的隐喻问题。因此,基于语用学和认知语言学的理论基础,创建一个圣经隐喻阐释架构,势在必行。第二,RT ,AT,CMT和CBT作为语用学和认知语言学的四大主体性理论,在研究和解析语言和交际方面,各有优缺点,具有很大的互补性和借鉴性。首先,从宏观来看,RT和AT致力于从语用视角来解决交际问题;CMT和CBT侧重从认知视角来解决语言问题。语用与认知即构成互补性。其次,从微观来看,RT强调在明示—推理范式下,以经济性原则寻求最佳关联,解释交际的过程;AT认为,顺应贯穿于交际过程的始终,交际的成败离不开对语言的顺应与选择。RT强调交际者的心理推导过程,AT则以顺应观、社会观和文化观来看待交际。从阐释力来看,RT在逻辑认知推导方面强于AT,而AT则更强调社交和文化维度在交际中的作用。RT强调语境效果在隐喻中的作用;AT倾向于以动态方式来解释和描述语言,对语境的动态顺应是交际成功的关键。RT强调获取会话含义的推导机制,但却无法解释为何某一阐释具有关联性,因此过于主观化。AT强调对特定语境作出顺应是语言使用的主要特征,但却无法为顺应性提供一个理论基础和认知方向。我们认为,RT对话语规律的描述与AT偏重于对话语的解释功能具有互补性。第三,CMT的单向不可逆映射性和CBT的多向投射性在阐释隐喻的运作机制方面,具有相互的补偿性。CMT主要处理具有普遍性及其规约性的隐喻概念化过程,而CBT主要解决非规约新奇隐喻的跨语域关系和概念化过程,二者都强调系统的映射和两个概念域的意象推理,两类模式具有高度互补性。
我们认为,RT, AT, CMT和CBT是圣经隐喻阐释的必要途径。R-A-C-C架构正是基于以上四种理论的互补性,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,以语用和认知为理论框架,集四种理论的优势为一体的圣经隐喻阐释模式,其阐释过程主要分为两大步骤,即解构阶段和构建阶段。解构阶段涉及隐喻意图和意义的解码。本过程的目的在于推断隐喻意图和隐喻意义表征,以隐喻推断为主。隐喻推断分为三个步骤:第一,明示意义与暗含意义的确认。第二,语境建构、语境激活与语境顺应过程。经过以上两个步骤,进入构建阶段。本阶段以隐喻的映射和合成过程为特征,分为三个步骤。第一,源域和目标域的建构以及互动过程。通过该过程,建立圣经隐喻的相关映射以及整合网络。第二,关联理论和顺应理论理据下的隐喻意义合成过程。通过该过程,圣经隐喻的新创意义即可生成。第三,最终获取圣经隐喻的阐释意义。整个过程中,阐释者的认知主体性作用处于凸显地位。它不仅包括阐释者的社会、文化以及认知推导能力,更强调阐释者与上帝的关系以及对待神的态度。
该研究有以下几个创新之处:第一,以语用学和认知语言学为理论基础,通过整合和完善相关理论,创建了圣经隐喻阐释机制的R-A-C-C架构。通过构建该架构过程中的理论探索和在实际圣经隐喻阐释中的应用,我们认为:该架构优于当前的RT, AT, CMT和CBT,是圣经隐喻阐释的一个有力工具和理论保障。对于其他类型的隐喻阐释也具有指导作用。第二,尝试将《圣经》的神学性、文学性、文化性、历史性以及语言特性纳入语用学和认知语言学的视阈内,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,从语言学的视角探索圣经隐喻的阐释机制。第三,将语用学与认知语言学相关理论予以整合,以基督教圣典为研究对象,该模式优化了当前语用学与认知语言学的四大理论,为今后基于语言学理论研究各类宗教经典提供了新的思路和视角。第四,提出了圣经隐喻阐释是基于语用推理、概念映射及整合以及阐释者认知主体性共同作用的结果这一理论观点。这一观点将为今后研究其他语言现象提供参考价值。
The book Bible has long been considered as the scripture of Christianity. At the same time, it is regarded as the foundation of civilization and literature in the West. Ever since the middle of twentieth century, the Bible has been thought of as a great work on the whole and a new research discipline has been formed in the academic realm in the West. In the late twentieth century a new upsurge started in the interpretative study on the Bible with literary critical theory and approach. One of the most important aspects in the biblical study centers on the study of biblical metaphors (including parables). It is universally claimed that the use of metaphors is the most distinctive and common language phenomenon in the Bible, which runs through the Old Testament and the New Testament. Currently, the study on biblical metaphors still remains on the literary and cultural dimensions at home and abroad. The comprehensive study on biblical metaphors in terms of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics is seldom seen either at home or abroad.
Our research is conducted on the basis of the following hypotheses: Biblical metaphors are a special language phenomenon as well as a special form of verbal communication. This argument makes it possible that the research on biblical metaphorical interpretations could be conducted in terms of pragmatic and cognitive linguistic perspectives. Specifically, this research is based on the Relevance Theory and the Adaptation Theory within the study of pragmatics; on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory as well as the Conceptual Blending Theory within the study of cognitive linguistics; on the experiential realism of philosophy to establish a R-A-C-C (the construction of Relevance-Adaptation-Conceptual metaphor theory-Conceptual blending theory) framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations.
The construction of R-A-C-C framework is based on the following theoretical considerations:
Firstly, at present, a relatively idealized and comprehensive theoretical and practical framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations has not been set up at home and abroad; therefore, it is imperative to construct a framework for the interpretations of biblical metaphors on the basis of contemporary pragmatic and cognitive linguistic theories.
Secondly, being the four fundamental theories in pragmatics and cognitive linguistics, RT, AT, CMT, and CBT have their respective merits and demerits and they are mutually complementary and supporting each other in the study of language and communication. From the macroscopic point of view, RT and AT deal with communication from the pragmatic perspective; CMT and CBT lay special emphasis on the cognitive perspective in dealing with language issues. In this case, the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective constitute the complementarities. From the microscopic point of view, though, RT stresses that the process of communication can be dealt with by seeking the optimum relevance with economical principle within the paradigm of ostension-inference. According to AT, adaptation runs through the whole process of communication and communication will break down without the language adaptation and choice. RT stresses the psychological inference whereas AT treats communication with the perspective of adaptation, society, and culture. Viewing from the explanatory power, we can see RT is more forceful than AT in terms of the logic cognitive inference; AT lays more emphasis on the function of society and culture in the process of communication. RT stresses the function of contextual effect in metaphors; AT tends to account for and describe the language in a dynamic way and claims that the key to successful communication lies in the dynamic adaptation to the context. RT stresses the mechanism of inference in obtaining the conversational implicature but it fails to explain why a certain kind of interpretation is relevant, thus resulting in a sort of subjectivity. AT stresses that it is the chief characteristics of language use to make adaptation to the specific language. But it cannot offer a theoretical foundation and cognitive orientation for the adaptation. We maintain that the description of language’s regular patterns with RT and the focus on the explanatory function of the utterance with AT are complementary.
Thirdly, the unidirectional mapping with CMT and the multidirectional projecting with CBT are also complementary to each other in terms of the operating mechanism of biblical metaphor interpretations. CMT mainly deals with the metaphorical conceptual process with generality and conventionality whereas CBT mainly resolve the cross-domain relation of the unconventional novel metaphor and the process of the conceptualization. Both emphasize the mapping in the system and the intentional inferences of the two conceptual domains, thus the two are highly complementary.
We hold that RT, AT, CMT, and CBT are the necessary means toward the interpretations of biblical metaphors, hence the R-A-C-C framework. It is constructed on the basis of the complementarities of the four theories, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, the pragmatic and cognitive theories as the theoretical framework, incorporating all the respective merits of the four theories for the biblical metaphorical interpretations. The interpretative process of R-A-C-C framework is composed of two stages, namely, the deconstructing stage and the constructing stage. The deconstructing stage involves the decoding of the metaphorical intention and meaning. The metaphorical inference is considered to be the main part of this phase, which is made up of two steps. The first step is the identification of the explicature and implicature. The second step is the contextual construction, the contextual activation, and the contextual adaptation. In the constructing stage, the metaphorical mapping and blending is highlighted, which is composed of three steps. The first step is the construction and interaction among the source domain and the target domain through which the mapping and blending network are set up. The second step is the process of the integration for the metaphorical meaning motivated by RT and AT. Through the process, the emergent structure and meaning can be generated. Finally, the ultimate accepted biblical metaphorical interpretation can be achieved. During the whole course of interpretation, the audience’s cognitive subjectivity plays the important role. It includes not just the audience’s social, cultural, and cognitive inferential competence; it also stresses the audience’s relationship with the God and the attitude towards God.
This research has made some innovations so far. Firstly, the R-A-C-C framework is created for the interpretation of biblical metaphors in combination with the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories as the theoretical foundation. Through the theoretical exploration and the application of R-A-C-C framework to the interpretation of biblical metaphors, we have found that the R-A-C-C framework is superior to the RT, AT, CMT, and CBT. It is a powerful tool and theoretical guarantee for the interpretation of biblical metaphors; at the same time, it is also instructive to other types of metaphors. Secondly, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, we have explored the interpretative mechanism of biblical metaphors completely from the linguistic perspective, attempting to bring the Bible’s theological nature, literary nature, cultural nature, historical nature, and language peculiarity to the scope of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Thirdly, with the scripture of Christianity as the research object, we have tried to integrate the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories. This practice offers an entirely new thinking pattern and perspective for the study of other religious scriptures within the frame of linguistics. Fourthly, it is proposed that the biblical metaphorical interpretation is based on the interactive operation of pragmatic inference, conceptual mapping and blending, plus the addressee’s cognitive subjectivity. This point of view might offer the reference value for the study of other language phenomena.
本研究是基于以下假设而展开:圣经隐喻是一种特殊的语言现象,同时也是言语交际活动的一种特殊形式。这一假设为从认知语言学和语用学视角研究圣经隐喻现象提供了可能。该研究以语用学中的关联理论(RT)和顺应理论(AT)以及认知语言学中的概念隐喻理论(CMT)和概念整合理论(CBT)为理论基础,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,试图创建一个R-A-C-C架构,此架构可以作为圣经隐喻阐释的理论框架。
R-A-C-C架构的创建,主要是基于以下理论对比:第一,目前国内外还没有一个相对理想化的理论和应用架构,来阐释圣经的隐喻问题。因此,基于语用学和认知语言学的理论基础,创建一个圣经隐喻阐释架构,势在必行。第二,RT ,AT,CMT和CBT作为语用学和认知语言学的四大主体性理论,在研究和解析语言和交际方面,各有优缺点,具有很大的互补性和借鉴性。首先,从宏观来看,RT和AT致力于从语用视角来解决交际问题;CMT和CBT侧重从认知视角来解决语言问题。语用与认知即构成互补性。其次,从微观来看,RT强调在明示—推理范式下,以经济性原则寻求最佳关联,解释交际的过程;AT认为,顺应贯穿于交际过程的始终,交际的成败离不开对语言的顺应与选择。RT强调交际者的心理推导过程,AT则以顺应观、社会观和文化观来看待交际。从阐释力来看,RT在逻辑认知推导方面强于AT,而AT则更强调社交和文化维度在交际中的作用。RT强调语境效果在隐喻中的作用;AT倾向于以动态方式来解释和描述语言,对语境的动态顺应是交际成功的关键。RT强调获取会话含义的推导机制,但却无法解释为何某一阐释具有关联性,因此过于主观化。AT强调对特定语境作出顺应是语言使用的主要特征,但却无法为顺应性提供一个理论基础和认知方向。我们认为,RT对话语规律的描述与AT偏重于对话语的解释功能具有互补性。第三,CMT的单向不可逆映射性和CBT的多向投射性在阐释隐喻的运作机制方面,具有相互的补偿性。CMT主要处理具有普遍性及其规约性的隐喻概念化过程,而CBT主要解决非规约新奇隐喻的跨语域关系和概念化过程,二者都强调系统的映射和两个概念域的意象推理,两类模式具有高度互补性。
我们认为,RT, AT, CMT和CBT是圣经隐喻阐释的必要途径。R-A-C-C架构正是基于以上四种理论的互补性,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,以语用和认知为理论框架,集四种理论的优势为一体的圣经隐喻阐释模式,其阐释过程主要分为两大步骤,即解构阶段和构建阶段。解构阶段涉及隐喻意图和意义的解码。本过程的目的在于推断隐喻意图和隐喻意义表征,以隐喻推断为主。隐喻推断分为三个步骤:第一,明示意义与暗含意义的确认。第二,语境建构、语境激活与语境顺应过程。经过以上两个步骤,进入构建阶段。本阶段以隐喻的映射和合成过程为特征,分为三个步骤。第一,源域和目标域的建构以及互动过程。通过该过程,建立圣经隐喻的相关映射以及整合网络。第二,关联理论和顺应理论理据下的隐喻意义合成过程。通过该过程,圣经隐喻的新创意义即可生成。第三,最终获取圣经隐喻的阐释意义。整个过程中,阐释者的认知主体性作用处于凸显地位。它不仅包括阐释者的社会、文化以及认知推导能力,更强调阐释者与上帝的关系以及对待神的态度。
该研究有以下几个创新之处:第一,以语用学和认知语言学为理论基础,通过整合和完善相关理论,创建了圣经隐喻阐释机制的R-A-C-C架构。通过构建该架构过程中的理论探索和在实际圣经隐喻阐释中的应用,我们认为:该架构优于当前的RT, AT, CMT和CBT,是圣经隐喻阐释的一个有力工具和理论保障。对于其他类型的隐喻阐释也具有指导作用。第二,尝试将《圣经》的神学性、文学性、文化性、历史性以及语言特性纳入语用学和认知语言学的视阈内,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,从语言学的视角探索圣经隐喻的阐释机制。第三,将语用学与认知语言学相关理论予以整合,以基督教圣典为研究对象,该模式优化了当前语用学与认知语言学的四大理论,为今后基于语言学理论研究各类宗教经典提供了新的思路和视角。第四,提出了圣经隐喻阐释是基于语用推理、概念映射及整合以及阐释者认知主体性共同作用的结果这一理论观点。这一观点将为今后研究其他语言现象提供参考价值。
The book Bible has long been considered as the scripture of Christianity. At the same time, it is regarded as the foundation of civilization and literature in the West. Ever since the middle of twentieth century, the Bible has been thought of as a great work on the whole and a new research discipline has been formed in the academic realm in the West. In the late twentieth century a new upsurge started in the interpretative study on the Bible with literary critical theory and approach. One of the most important aspects in the biblical study centers on the study of biblical metaphors (including parables). It is universally claimed that the use of metaphors is the most distinctive and common language phenomenon in the Bible, which runs through the Old Testament and the New Testament. Currently, the study on biblical metaphors still remains on the literary and cultural dimensions at home and abroad. The comprehensive study on biblical metaphors in terms of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics is seldom seen either at home or abroad.
Our research is conducted on the basis of the following hypotheses: Biblical metaphors are a special language phenomenon as well as a special form of verbal communication. This argument makes it possible that the research on biblical metaphorical interpretations could be conducted in terms of pragmatic and cognitive linguistic perspectives. Specifically, this research is based on the Relevance Theory and the Adaptation Theory within the study of pragmatics; on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory as well as the Conceptual Blending Theory within the study of cognitive linguistics; on the experiential realism of philosophy to establish a R-A-C-C (the construction of Relevance-Adaptation-Conceptual metaphor theory-Conceptual blending theory) framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations.
The construction of R-A-C-C framework is based on the following theoretical considerations:
Firstly, at present, a relatively idealized and comprehensive theoretical and practical framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations has not been set up at home and abroad; therefore, it is imperative to construct a framework for the interpretations of biblical metaphors on the basis of contemporary pragmatic and cognitive linguistic theories.
Secondly, being the four fundamental theories in pragmatics and cognitive linguistics, RT, AT, CMT, and CBT have their respective merits and demerits and they are mutually complementary and supporting each other in the study of language and communication. From the macroscopic point of view, RT and AT deal with communication from the pragmatic perspective; CMT and CBT lay special emphasis on the cognitive perspective in dealing with language issues. In this case, the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective constitute the complementarities. From the microscopic point of view, though, RT stresses that the process of communication can be dealt with by seeking the optimum relevance with economical principle within the paradigm of ostension-inference. According to AT, adaptation runs through the whole process of communication and communication will break down without the language adaptation and choice. RT stresses the psychological inference whereas AT treats communication with the perspective of adaptation, society, and culture. Viewing from the explanatory power, we can see RT is more forceful than AT in terms of the logic cognitive inference; AT lays more emphasis on the function of society and culture in the process of communication. RT stresses the function of contextual effect in metaphors; AT tends to account for and describe the language in a dynamic way and claims that the key to successful communication lies in the dynamic adaptation to the context. RT stresses the mechanism of inference in obtaining the conversational implicature but it fails to explain why a certain kind of interpretation is relevant, thus resulting in a sort of subjectivity. AT stresses that it is the chief characteristics of language use to make adaptation to the specific language. But it cannot offer a theoretical foundation and cognitive orientation for the adaptation. We maintain that the description of language’s regular patterns with RT and the focus on the explanatory function of the utterance with AT are complementary.
Thirdly, the unidirectional mapping with CMT and the multidirectional projecting with CBT are also complementary to each other in terms of the operating mechanism of biblical metaphor interpretations. CMT mainly deals with the metaphorical conceptual process with generality and conventionality whereas CBT mainly resolve the cross-domain relation of the unconventional novel metaphor and the process of the conceptualization. Both emphasize the mapping in the system and the intentional inferences of the two conceptual domains, thus the two are highly complementary.
We hold that RT, AT, CMT, and CBT are the necessary means toward the interpretations of biblical metaphors, hence the R-A-C-C framework. It is constructed on the basis of the complementarities of the four theories, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, the pragmatic and cognitive theories as the theoretical framework, incorporating all the respective merits of the four theories for the biblical metaphorical interpretations. The interpretative process of R-A-C-C framework is composed of two stages, namely, the deconstructing stage and the constructing stage. The deconstructing stage involves the decoding of the metaphorical intention and meaning. The metaphorical inference is considered to be the main part of this phase, which is made up of two steps. The first step is the identification of the explicature and implicature. The second step is the contextual construction, the contextual activation, and the contextual adaptation. In the constructing stage, the metaphorical mapping and blending is highlighted, which is composed of three steps. The first step is the construction and interaction among the source domain and the target domain through which the mapping and blending network are set up. The second step is the process of the integration for the metaphorical meaning motivated by RT and AT. Through the process, the emergent structure and meaning can be generated. Finally, the ultimate accepted biblical metaphorical interpretation can be achieved. During the whole course of interpretation, the audience’s cognitive subjectivity plays the important role. It includes not just the audience’s social, cultural, and cognitive inferential competence; it also stresses the audience’s relationship with the God and the attitude towards God.
This research has made some innovations so far. Firstly, the R-A-C-C framework is created for the interpretation of biblical metaphors in combination with the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories as the theoretical foundation. Through the theoretical exploration and the application of R-A-C-C framework to the interpretation of biblical metaphors, we have found that the R-A-C-C framework is superior to the RT, AT, CMT, and CBT. It is a powerful tool and theoretical guarantee for the interpretation of biblical metaphors; at the same time, it is also instructive to other types of metaphors. Secondly, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, we have explored the interpretative mechanism of biblical metaphors completely from the linguistic perspective, attempting to bring the Bible’s theological nature, literary nature, cultural nature, historical nature, and language peculiarity to the scope of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Thirdly, with the scripture of Christianity as the research object, we have tried to integrate the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories. This practice offers an entirely new thinking pattern and perspective for the study of other religious scriptures within the frame of linguistics. Fourthly, it is proposed that the biblical metaphorical interpretation is based on the interactive operation of pragmatic inference, conceptual mapping and blending, plus the addressee’s cognitive subjectivity. This point of view might offer the reference value for the study of other language phenomena.
引文
1 Chinese scholar Wang Lei (王磊) used to make a cognitive approach towards biblical parables in the New Testament in his doctoral dissertation in 2008.
2These statements are quoted from王寅:2007: 403-406.
(1) Achard, Michel and Susanne Niemeier (eds)‘Special issue on language acquisition’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 1–2,2000.
(2) Aitchison, Jean. Words in the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
(3) Achtemeier, E. Exchanging God for“No Gods”: A discussion of female language for God. In A. Kimel (Ed.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism, 1–16. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1992.
(4) Allwood, Jens and Peter G?rdenfors (eds), Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
(5) Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by W. H. Fyfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1932.
(6) Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.
(7) Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin, 1991.
(8) Aristotle. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Trans. Lane Cooper. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1960.
(9) Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn, eds J. O. Urmson, and S. Marina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962, 1975.
(10) Barcelona, Antonio, Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Gruyter, 2000.
(11) Barker, Melanie. The Power of Metaphors for Exploring Cultural Difference in Groupl. Behavior Science, 2010, Volume 26.
(12) Besan, S. A. Father-ruler: The meaning of the metaphor“Father”for God in the Bible. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 39(3), 433–442, 1996
(13) Black, M. Models and Metaphors. New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
(14) Black, M. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
(15) Black, M. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, 1993.
(16) Black, M. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(17) Black, Max. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.
(18) Blumenbergs, Hans. Paradigms for A Metaphorology. Cornell University Press, 5-10, 2010.
(19) Brian, Wren. What Language Shall I Borrow? New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989.
(20) Brian, Wren. The Abingdon Worship Annual 2004: Contemporary & Traditional Resources for Worship Leaders, Abingdon Pr, 2003.
(21) Brugman, C. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics, 250-260, 1990, 1,
(22) Brugman, Claudia. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 250-260, 1990.
(23) Cameron Lynne and Graham Low. Researching and Applying Metaphror. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
(24) Cameron, Lynne and Graham Low. Research and Applying Metaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
(25) Carston, R. Thought and Utterance: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden: Blackwell, 377, 2002.
(26) Chesley, Gayle L. Verbal and nonverbal communication metaphor with children in counseling, Journal of Counsel & Development, 2008, volume, 86.
(27) Chomsky, N. Problems of Knowledge and Freedom, 10-11. London, Barrie and Jenkins,1972. Series title: The Russell lectures (Trinity College, Cambridge) 1971.
(28) Cooper, David E. Metaphor, 3-7. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
(29) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510-1536, 2005.
(30) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending basics, Cognitive Linguistics 11: 174-195, 2000.
(31) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending basics, Cognitive Linguistics 11: 176-197, 2000.
(32) Coulson, S. & T. Matlock. Metaphor and the Space Structuring Model. 16 (3&4):295-316, 2001.
(33) Coulson, S. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. 23-50, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
(34) Coulson, S. The Menendez Brothers Virus: Analogical Mapping in Blended Spaces. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Palo Alto, CA:CSLI, 1996.
(35) DesCamp, Mary Therese and Eve E. Sweetser. Metaphors for God: Why and How Do Our Choices Matter for Humans? The Application of Contemporary Cognitive Linguistics Research to the Debate on God and Metaphor. Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2005.
(36) Embler, Weller. Metaphor and Meaning. Everett/Edwards, Inc., 1966.
(37) Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 156-160, 2006.
(38) Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark.“Rethinking Metaphor”. Ray Gibbs, editor, Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 53-66, 2008.
(39) Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UCSD Cognitive Science Technical Report, 1994.
(40) Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hideden Complexities. NY: Basic Books, 2002.
(41) Fauconnier, Gilles and Sweetser, Eva (Editors). Space, Words and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
(42) Fauconnier, Gilles. & Mark Turner. Blending as a central process of grammar. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language ed. by Adele Goldberg. Stanford,CA: CSLI., 1996.
(43) Fauconnier, Gilles. & Mark Turner. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22:2.133-187, 1998.
(44) Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, 1997.
(45) Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
(46) Firth, J. R. Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
(47) Frye, R. M. Language for God and feminist language: Problems and principles. In A. Kimel (Ed.), 17–43. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism ishing Co. 1992.
(48) Gabel, J. B. and Wheeler, C. B. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
(49) Gazdar, G. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press, 40-48, 1979.
(50) Gentner, D. Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Journal of Philosophy, 47-49, 1991,10.
(51) Gibb, H., and R. Wales. Metaphor or Simile: Psychological Determinants of the Differential Use of Each Sentence form. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1990, 5 (4):119-211.
(52) Gibbs, R. W. When is metaphor: The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today, 13: 586, 1992.
(53) Gibbs, Raymmond W. and Herbert Colston. The cognitive psychological reality of schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6 (4): 347-370.
(54) Gibbs. F Raymond W. When is metaphor: The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today, 13: 575-600.
(55) Gibbs, R. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it back into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, 146–166.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 1999.
(56) Glucksberg, S., and Keysar, B. Understanding metaphorical comparison: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 90, 5-17, 1990.
(57) Glucksberg, Sam and Matthew McGlone. When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (12), 1541-1558, 1999.
(58) Gowler, David B. What Are They Saying About the Parables? Marwah: Paulist Press, 50-54, 2000.
(59) Grady, Joseph E. A Typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Raymond Gibbs and Gerard Steen, 79-100. Amersterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
(60) Grady, J. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 135-136, 1997.
(61) Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, in Cole and Morgan 1975: 41-58. Reprinted in Grice, 1989: 22-40.
(62) Grice, H. P. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature, in Cole 1981: 183-98. Reprinted in Grice 1989: 41-57.
(63) Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
(64) Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004, 4
(65) Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, 1985/1994.
(66) Hargie O, Dickson D. Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory and Practice, 4th edn. Routledge , 2004.
(67) Harris, R. J., Lahey, M. A. and Marsalek, F. Metaphors and Images: Rating, Reporting, and Remembering, in Honeck and Hoffman (eds.), 225-226, 1980.
(68) Hausman, Carl R. Metaphor and Art: Interactionism and Reference in the Verbal and Nonverbal Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 1984, 1989.
(69) Hawkes, T. Metaphor (2nd edition). London: Routledge, 9-11, 1984.
(70) Health, J. Communicative Action and Rational Choice, 105-108. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, 2001.
(71) Hulgren, A. J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
(72) Horn, L. R. On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. Mimeo: Indiana University linguistics Club, 1984.
(73) Indurkhya, Bipin. Metaphor and Cognition: An Interactionist Approach. Dorcrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.
(74) Isenberg, Arnold. On Defining Metaphor, Journal of Philosophy, 60 (21):609-622, 1963.
(75) Insole, C. J. Metaphor and the impossibility of failing to speak about God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 52: 35-43, 2002.
(76) Jakel, Olaf. Metaphorical Scenarios of Science. In M. Putz & R. Dirven (eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
(77) Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Metaphor in Biblical Prophecy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 10-14, 2006.
(78) John, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 54-67, 1987.
(79) Johnson, Mark. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981.
(80) Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Barlow. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, vii-xxviii. Stanford: CSLI, 2000.
(81) Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1988.
(82) Kingsbury, Jack D. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1983.
(83) Koerner, E. F. K.“Toward a History of Linguistic Typology”. Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1-23. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
(84) Kovac, Maureen Gallery. Epic of Gilgamesh. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989.
(85) K(o|¨)vecses, Zoltan. Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction, 10-12. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
(86) K(o|¨)vecses, Zoltan. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20-22, 2002.
(87) Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
(88) Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
(89) Lakoff, George. & Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press. 1980.
(90) Lakoff, George.“The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:39-74, 1990.
(91) Lakoff, George. Cognitive models and prototype theory. In Ulric Neisser (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, 390-420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987b.
(92) Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(93) Lakoff, George. What is a conceptual system? In Wills F. Overton and David S. Palermo. (eds.), The Nature and Ontogenesis of Meaning, 41-90. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.
(94) Lakoff, George. Woman, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987a.
(95) Lascarides, A. and N. Asher. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 430-489, 1993.
(96) Langacker, Ronald W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
(97) Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol I: TheoreticalPrerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987. Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.
(98) Langacker, Ronald. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 2002.
(99) Leary, D. E. Psyche’s Muse: the Role of Metaphor in the History of Psychology. In D. E. Leary (ed.). Metaphors in the History of Psychology. CUP, 1990.
(100) Leech, G. N. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman, 1969.
(101) Levin, S. R. The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore, PA: John Hopkins University Press, 1977.
(102) Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
(103) Levinson, S. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
(104) Li Fuyin & Koenraad Kuiper. Semantics: A Course Book. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999,11
(105) Lindner, S. J. A Lexico-semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Ph. D thesis. University of California, San Diego, 1981.
(106) Lundmark, Carita. Metaphor and Creativity in British Magazine Advertising.23-32, Doctoral dissertation, Lulea University of Technology, 2005.
(107) MacCormac, Ear. R. Tow Poles of Metaphor: Frye and Beardsley. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33-49, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1977.
(108) MacCormac, Earl R. Metaphor Revisited, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Winter, 1990), 238-242.
(109) Malinowski, B.“The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages”, supplement to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1923.
(110) Mandelblit, N. Beyond Lexical semantics: Meaning and blending of conceptual and linguistic structures in machine translation. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing. Dublin, Ireland, 1995.
(111) Mandelblit, N. The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: from syntaxto morphology. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 197-251, 2000.
(112) Marmaridou, S. S, A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
(113) Martin, J. R. Intrinsic functionality: implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 99-110, 1991.
(114) Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
(115) Oakley, Image Schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 215-230, 2007.
(116) Oakley, Todd. Image schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214-230, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
(117) Ortony, A. Metaphor: A multidisciplinary problem. In Metaphor and Thought, A. Ortony (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 10-12, 1919a.
(118) Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, Vol. 25, p45-53. 1975.
(119) Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor and Thought (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
(120) Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. In Ortony (ed.), 1979.
(121) Palermo, D. S. Theoretical issues in semantic development. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 335- 364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.
(122) Palmer, Gray B. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1996.
(123) Porter, James E. Audience and Rhetoric. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1992.
(124) Preminger and Brogan. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University of Press, 1993.
(125) Putnam, H. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981.
(126) Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F., & Poli, J. The timecourse of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain & Language, 55, 293-316, 1996.
(127) Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria. Translated by H. E. Butler. In The Institution Oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953.
(128) Quintillian. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintillian. (H. E. Butler, Trans.). New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. (Original work published 1921), 3-20, 1933.
(129) Reddy, Michael. The Conduit Metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(130) Richard, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1936/1979.
(131) Richards, I. A., The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 87-90, 1936.
(132) Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor. Translated by R. Czerny. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973, 1977, 1978.
(133) Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. Metaphoric processes in word formation: The case of prefixed verbs. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (eds.) The Ubiquity of Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985.
(134) Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
(135) Searle, J. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
(136) Searle, J. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
(137) Searle, J. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
(138) Searle, J. Metaphor. IN A. Ortony (ed). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100-108, 1993.
(139) Searle, J. Metaphor. In Martinich, A. P. (ed.) The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, 414-435.
(140) Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
(141) Samovar, Larry A, Richard E. Porter and Lisa A. Stefani. Communication Between Cultures. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 19-15, 2000.
(142) Snodgrass, Klyner. R Recent Research on the Parables of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 187-216, 1998, 8
(143) Soskice, J. M. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
(144) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. A deflationary account of metaphors. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203, 2006.
(145) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In N. V. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press, 61-85, 1982.
(146) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 230-264, 1995/2001.
(147) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (eds.). Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
(148) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell,1986.
(149) Strauss, A. Qualitative Research for Social Scientists, 12-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
(150) Sweetser, Eve and Rafael Nú?ez: Spatial embodiment of temporal metaphors in Aymara: Blending source-domain gesture with speech. Talk at the 7thICLC. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001.
(151) Sweetser, Eve. Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), 201–224. 2007.
(152) Sweetser, Eve. Review of“Language and Gesture”by David McNeill (Ed.)”.Gesture 1:2, 237–259. 2002.
(153) Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1985.
(154) Talmy, L. Forward. In Gonzalez-Marquez et al. (eds.), The Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.
(155) Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 4-10, 2000a.
(156) Tanaka, Keiko. Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements. London: Routledge, 1994.
(157) Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman, 1995.
(158) Tourangeau, R. J. Sternberg. Aptness in Metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13:27-55, 1981.
(159) Tourangeau, R. J. Sternberg. Understanding and Appreciating Metaphors. Cognition 11: 203-244, 1982.
(160) Turner, Mark.“Conceptual Integration”in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 12, 2007.
(161) Ulmann , S. The Principles of Semantics (2nd ed.). London: Basil Blackwell, 1957.
(162) Unger, Christoph. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence—The Pragmatics of Discourse Type.北京:世界图书出版公司,2008,10
(163) Ungerer, F & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001, 9
(164) Verbrugge, R. & McCarrell, N. Metaphor comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology 9: 494-533, 1977.
(165) Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 60-69, 2000.
(166) Vosniadou, S., Context and the Development of Metaphor Comprehension, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4(2):159-71, 1989.
(167) Weinrich, U. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Substance and Structure of Language. Puhvel, J.,ed., Los Angeles: University of California Press,1958.
(168) Wheelwright, P. Metaphor and Reality. Indiana University Press, 1962.
(169) Whitney, W. D. The Life and Growth of Language. New York: Appleton, 1875.
(170) Wilson, D. Relevance and Communication,《现代外语》,2000, 2
(171) Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding, in Brown et al. 1994: 35-58. First published in Guijarro Morales, 1994a.
(172) Wilson, D. Truth, Coherence and Relevance. Paper delivered to the European Society for Philosophpy and Psychology, 1994b.
(173) Wilson, Robert R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
(174) Winter, Steven L. A clearing in the forest. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 230-244, 1995.
(175) Wood, J. T. Communication Theories in Action: An Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.
(176) Wood, J. T. Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: commonalities and divergences, Woman & Language, 10-15, 2005, 28.
(177) Yu Ning, The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1996.
(178) Yule, George. Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000, 3
(179)白解红.语境与语用研究,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》,2000,3.
(180)陈家旭.《英汉隐喻认知对比研究》,上海:学林出版社,2007, 8
(181)冯翠华.《英语修辞大全》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995,12
(182)高远,李福印.《乔治.莱可夫认知语言学十讲》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007,4
(183)何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000, 3
(184)何兆熊.《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003, 9
(185)何自然,冉永平.《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,2002, 6
(186)何自然,冉永平.《语用与认知—关联理论研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
(187)何自然,谢朝群,陈新仁.《语用三论:关联论顺应论模因论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007, 12
(188)何自然、于国栋.语用学的理解—Jef Verschueren的新作评价,《现代外语》,1999,4
(189)何自然.《认知语用学—言语交际的认知研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,6
(190)胡壮麟.《认知隐喻学》,北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
(191)姜望琪.《语用学—理论及应用》,北京:北京大学出版社,2000, 1
(192)加达默尔.《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
(193)蒋勇,马玉蕾. CB与RT的整合性研究,《外语学刊》, 31-36,2003,1
(194)蓝纯. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press, 2-10, 40-41, 2008.
(195)李福印.《认知语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社,2008,12
(196)李占喜.《关联与顺应:翻译过程研究》,北京:科学出版社,2007, 1
(197)梁工.《圣经视阈中的东西方文学》,北京:商务印书馆, 105-107, 2007,3.
(198)梁工.《圣经叙事艺术研究》,北京:商务印书馆,333-338, 2006, 7.
(199)廖巧云.《C-R-A模式:言语交际的三维阐释》,上海外国语大学博士论文,2005, 5.
(200)刘法公.《隐喻汉英翻译原则研究》,北京:国防工业出版社,2008,11
(201)刘锋.圣言、隐喻和意义的诠释.《四川外语学院学报》,2007,3.
(202)刘意青.《圣经的文学阐释》,北京:北京大学出版社,2004,3
(203)刘正光.《隐喻的认知研究—理论与实践》,长沙:湖南人民出版社,2007, 4
(204)梅美莲.《小说交际语用研究》,杭州:浙江大学出版社,2008, 5
(205)沈家煊.《不对称和标记论》,南昌:江西教育出版社,4-6,1999.
(206)沈家煊.《认知与汉语语法研究》,北京:商务印书馆,2006,12
(207)束定芳.《隐喻学研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
(208)苏立昌.《认知语言学与意义理论—隐喻与意义理论研究》,天津:南开大学出版社,82-83,2007.
(209)孙亚.《语用和认知概论》,北京:北京大学出版社,2008,9
(210)王磊.《圣经寓言故事的认知阐释》,上海外国语大学博士论文,2008,12.
(211)王文斌.《隐喻的认知构建与解读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007,11
(212)王寅.《认知语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,350-430,2007.
(213)王寅.《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001,10
(214)王正元.《概念整合理论及其应用研究》,北京:高等教育出版社,2009, 2
(215)魏在江.《英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究》,上海:复旦大学出版社,2007,10
(216)熊学亮.《认知语用学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999, 6
(217)徐章宏.《隐喻话语理解的语用认知研究》,北京:科学出版社,2007, 1
(218)亚里士多德.《诗学》,北京:商务印书馆,1996
(219)幺孝颖.《仿拟话语的认知语用研究》,北京:国防工业出版社,2008,11
(220)叶舒宪.《圣经比喻》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
(221)尹丕安,李健,延宏.基于效应决策模式的认知言语交际分析《,安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010,1.
(222)尹丕安.《跨文化交际—理论与实践》,西安:西北工业大学出版社,2007,3
(223)尹丕安.从话语的认知层面解析翻译与语言的表层结构和深层结构,《外语教学》,2004, 5
(224)尹丕安.从认知语境及关联的视角探讨翻译文本的建构,《西安石油大学学报》(社科版),2007, 3
(225)尹丕安.基于模因论的知识转移进程分析,《情报理论与实践》,2010,8
(226)尹丕安.模因论与隐喻的认知理据,《西安外国语大学学报》,2005,6
(227)尹丕安.顺应-关联连续体下的语境和语义动态性分析,《语言教学与研究》,2007,3
(228)尹丕安.言语交际和传输过程中的话语原则分析,《西安外国语大学学报》,2008,3
(229)张朝柯.《圣经与希伯来民间文学》,北京:东方出版社,1-5, 2004, 1
(230)张蓊荟.《认知视阈下英文小说汉译中隐喻翻译的模式及评估》,北京:中国文联出版社,2009, 4
(231)赵虹.《言语反讽的关联理论研究—傲慢与偏见个案分析》,济南:山东大学出版社,2008,12
(232)张辉.《熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究》,军事谊文出版社,2003.
(233)赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001, 3
(234) http://instapedia.com/m/
(235) http://instapedia.com/m/
2These statements are quoted from王寅:2007: 403-406.
(1) Achard, Michel and Susanne Niemeier (eds)‘Special issue on language acquisition’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 1–2,2000.
(2) Aitchison, Jean. Words in the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
(3) Achtemeier, E. Exchanging God for“No Gods”: A discussion of female language for God. In A. Kimel (Ed.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism, 1–16. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1992.
(4) Allwood, Jens and Peter G?rdenfors (eds), Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
(5) Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by W. H. Fyfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1932.
(6) Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.
(7) Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin, 1991.
(8) Aristotle. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Trans. Lane Cooper. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1960.
(9) Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn, eds J. O. Urmson, and S. Marina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962, 1975.
(10) Barcelona, Antonio, Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Gruyter, 2000.
(11) Barker, Melanie. The Power of Metaphors for Exploring Cultural Difference in Groupl. Behavior Science, 2010, Volume 26.
(12) Besan, S. A. Father-ruler: The meaning of the metaphor“Father”for God in the Bible. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 39(3), 433–442, 1996
(13) Black, M. Models and Metaphors. New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
(14) Black, M. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
(15) Black, M. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, 1993.
(16) Black, M. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(17) Black, Max. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.
(18) Blumenbergs, Hans. Paradigms for A Metaphorology. Cornell University Press, 5-10, 2010.
(19) Brian, Wren. What Language Shall I Borrow? New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989.
(20) Brian, Wren. The Abingdon Worship Annual 2004: Contemporary & Traditional Resources for Worship Leaders, Abingdon Pr, 2003.
(21) Brugman, C. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics, 250-260, 1990, 1,
(22) Brugman, Claudia. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 250-260, 1990.
(23) Cameron Lynne and Graham Low. Researching and Applying Metaphror. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
(24) Cameron, Lynne and Graham Low. Research and Applying Metaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
(25) Carston, R. Thought and Utterance: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden: Blackwell, 377, 2002.
(26) Chesley, Gayle L. Verbal and nonverbal communication metaphor with children in counseling, Journal of Counsel & Development, 2008, volume, 86.
(27) Chomsky, N. Problems of Knowledge and Freedom, 10-11. London, Barrie and Jenkins,1972. Series title: The Russell lectures (Trinity College, Cambridge) 1971.
(28) Cooper, David E. Metaphor, 3-7. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
(29) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510-1536, 2005.
(30) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending basics, Cognitive Linguistics 11: 174-195, 2000.
(31) Coulson, S and Todd Oakley. Blending basics, Cognitive Linguistics 11: 176-197, 2000.
(32) Coulson, S. & T. Matlock. Metaphor and the Space Structuring Model. 16 (3&4):295-316, 2001.
(33) Coulson, S. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. 23-50, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
(34) Coulson, S. The Menendez Brothers Virus: Analogical Mapping in Blended Spaces. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Palo Alto, CA:CSLI, 1996.
(35) DesCamp, Mary Therese and Eve E. Sweetser. Metaphors for God: Why and How Do Our Choices Matter for Humans? The Application of Contemporary Cognitive Linguistics Research to the Debate on God and Metaphor. Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2005.
(36) Embler, Weller. Metaphor and Meaning. Everett/Edwards, Inc., 1966.
(37) Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 156-160, 2006.
(38) Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark.“Rethinking Metaphor”. Ray Gibbs, editor, Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 53-66, 2008.
(39) Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UCSD Cognitive Science Technical Report, 1994.
(40) Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hideden Complexities. NY: Basic Books, 2002.
(41) Fauconnier, Gilles and Sweetser, Eva (Editors). Space, Words and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
(42) Fauconnier, Gilles. & Mark Turner. Blending as a central process of grammar. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language ed. by Adele Goldberg. Stanford,CA: CSLI., 1996.
(43) Fauconnier, Gilles. & Mark Turner. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22:2.133-187, 1998.
(44) Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, 1997.
(45) Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
(46) Firth, J. R. Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
(47) Frye, R. M. Language for God and feminist language: Problems and principles. In A. Kimel (Ed.), 17–43. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism ishing Co. 1992.
(48) Gabel, J. B. and Wheeler, C. B. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
(49) Gazdar, G. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press, 40-48, 1979.
(50) Gentner, D. Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Journal of Philosophy, 47-49, 1991,10.
(51) Gibb, H., and R. Wales. Metaphor or Simile: Psychological Determinants of the Differential Use of Each Sentence form. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1990, 5 (4):119-211.
(52) Gibbs, R. W. When is metaphor: The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today, 13: 586, 1992.
(53) Gibbs, Raymmond W. and Herbert Colston. The cognitive psychological reality of schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6 (4): 347-370.
(54) Gibbs. F Raymond W. When is metaphor: The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today, 13: 575-600.
(55) Gibbs, R. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it back into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, 146–166.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 1999.
(56) Glucksberg, S., and Keysar, B. Understanding metaphorical comparison: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 90, 5-17, 1990.
(57) Glucksberg, Sam and Matthew McGlone. When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (12), 1541-1558, 1999.
(58) Gowler, David B. What Are They Saying About the Parables? Marwah: Paulist Press, 50-54, 2000.
(59) Grady, Joseph E. A Typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Raymond Gibbs and Gerard Steen, 79-100. Amersterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
(60) Grady, J. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 135-136, 1997.
(61) Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, in Cole and Morgan 1975: 41-58. Reprinted in Grice, 1989: 22-40.
(62) Grice, H. P. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature, in Cole 1981: 183-98. Reprinted in Grice 1989: 41-57.
(63) Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
(64) Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004, 4
(65) Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, 1985/1994.
(66) Hargie O, Dickson D. Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory and Practice, 4th edn. Routledge , 2004.
(67) Harris, R. J., Lahey, M. A. and Marsalek, F. Metaphors and Images: Rating, Reporting, and Remembering, in Honeck and Hoffman (eds.), 225-226, 1980.
(68) Hausman, Carl R. Metaphor and Art: Interactionism and Reference in the Verbal and Nonverbal Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 1984, 1989.
(69) Hawkes, T. Metaphor (2nd edition). London: Routledge, 9-11, 1984.
(70) Health, J. Communicative Action and Rational Choice, 105-108. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, 2001.
(71) Hulgren, A. J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
(72) Horn, L. R. On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. Mimeo: Indiana University linguistics Club, 1984.
(73) Indurkhya, Bipin. Metaphor and Cognition: An Interactionist Approach. Dorcrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.
(74) Isenberg, Arnold. On Defining Metaphor, Journal of Philosophy, 60 (21):609-622, 1963.
(75) Insole, C. J. Metaphor and the impossibility of failing to speak about God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 52: 35-43, 2002.
(76) Jakel, Olaf. Metaphorical Scenarios of Science. In M. Putz & R. Dirven (eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
(77) Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Metaphor in Biblical Prophecy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 10-14, 2006.
(78) John, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 54-67, 1987.
(79) Johnson, Mark. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981.
(80) Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Barlow. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, vii-xxviii. Stanford: CSLI, 2000.
(81) Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1988.
(82) Kingsbury, Jack D. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1983.
(83) Koerner, E. F. K.“Toward a History of Linguistic Typology”. Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1-23. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.
(84) Kovac, Maureen Gallery. Epic of Gilgamesh. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989.
(85) K(o|¨)vecses, Zoltan. Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction, 10-12. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
(86) K(o|¨)vecses, Zoltan. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20-22, 2002.
(87) Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
(88) Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
(89) Lakoff, George. & Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press. 1980.
(90) Lakoff, George.“The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:39-74, 1990.
(91) Lakoff, George. Cognitive models and prototype theory. In Ulric Neisser (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, 390-420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987b.
(92) Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(93) Lakoff, George. What is a conceptual system? In Wills F. Overton and David S. Palermo. (eds.), The Nature and Ontogenesis of Meaning, 41-90. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.
(94) Lakoff, George. Woman, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987a.
(95) Lascarides, A. and N. Asher. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 430-489, 1993.
(96) Langacker, Ronald W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
(97) Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol I: TheoreticalPrerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987. Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.
(98) Langacker, Ronald. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 2002.
(99) Leary, D. E. Psyche’s Muse: the Role of Metaphor in the History of Psychology. In D. E. Leary (ed.). Metaphors in the History of Psychology. CUP, 1990.
(100) Leech, G. N. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman, 1969.
(101) Levin, S. R. The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore, PA: John Hopkins University Press, 1977.
(102) Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
(103) Levinson, S. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
(104) Li Fuyin & Koenraad Kuiper. Semantics: A Course Book. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999,11
(105) Lindner, S. J. A Lexico-semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Ph. D thesis. University of California, San Diego, 1981.
(106) Lundmark, Carita. Metaphor and Creativity in British Magazine Advertising.23-32, Doctoral dissertation, Lulea University of Technology, 2005.
(107) MacCormac, Ear. R. Tow Poles of Metaphor: Frye and Beardsley. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33-49, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1977.
(108) MacCormac, Earl R. Metaphor Revisited, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Winter, 1990), 238-242.
(109) Malinowski, B.“The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages”, supplement to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1923.
(110) Mandelblit, N. Beyond Lexical semantics: Meaning and blending of conceptual and linguistic structures in machine translation. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing. Dublin, Ireland, 1995.
(111) Mandelblit, N. The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: from syntaxto morphology. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 197-251, 2000.
(112) Marmaridou, S. S, A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
(113) Martin, J. R. Intrinsic functionality: implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 99-110, 1991.
(114) Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
(115) Oakley, Image Schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 215-230, 2007.
(116) Oakley, Todd. Image schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214-230, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
(117) Ortony, A. Metaphor: A multidisciplinary problem. In Metaphor and Thought, A. Ortony (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 10-12, 1919a.
(118) Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, Vol. 25, p45-53. 1975.
(119) Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor and Thought (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
(120) Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. In Ortony (ed.), 1979.
(121) Palermo, D. S. Theoretical issues in semantic development. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 335- 364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.
(122) Palmer, Gray B. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1996.
(123) Porter, James E. Audience and Rhetoric. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1992.
(124) Preminger and Brogan. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University of Press, 1993.
(125) Putnam, H. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981.
(126) Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F., & Poli, J. The timecourse of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain & Language, 55, 293-316, 1996.
(127) Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria. Translated by H. E. Butler. In The Institution Oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953.
(128) Quintillian. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintillian. (H. E. Butler, Trans.). New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. (Original work published 1921), 3-20, 1933.
(129) Reddy, Michael. The Conduit Metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(130) Richard, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1936/1979.
(131) Richards, I. A., The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 87-90, 1936.
(132) Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor. Translated by R. Czerny. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973, 1977, 1978.
(133) Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. Metaphoric processes in word formation: The case of prefixed verbs. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (eds.) The Ubiquity of Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985.
(134) Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
(135) Searle, J. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
(136) Searle, J. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
(137) Searle, J. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
(138) Searle, J. Metaphor. IN A. Ortony (ed). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100-108, 1993.
(139) Searle, J. Metaphor. In Martinich, A. P. (ed.) The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, 414-435.
(140) Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
(141) Samovar, Larry A, Richard E. Porter and Lisa A. Stefani. Communication Between Cultures. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 19-15, 2000.
(142) Snodgrass, Klyner. R Recent Research on the Parables of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 187-216, 1998, 8
(143) Soskice, J. M. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
(144) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. A deflationary account of metaphors. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203, 2006.
(145) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In N. V. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge. London: Academic Press, 61-85, 1982.
(146) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 230-264, 1995/2001.
(147) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (eds.). Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
(148) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell,1986.
(149) Strauss, A. Qualitative Research for Social Scientists, 12-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
(150) Sweetser, Eve and Rafael Nú?ez: Spatial embodiment of temporal metaphors in Aymara: Blending source-domain gesture with speech. Talk at the 7thICLC. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001.
(151) Sweetser, Eve. Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), 201–224. 2007.
(152) Sweetser, Eve. Review of“Language and Gesture”by David McNeill (Ed.)”.Gesture 1:2, 237–259. 2002.
(153) Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1985.
(154) Talmy, L. Forward. In Gonzalez-Marquez et al. (eds.), The Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.
(155) Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 4-10, 2000a.
(156) Tanaka, Keiko. Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements. London: Routledge, 1994.
(157) Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman, 1995.
(158) Tourangeau, R. J. Sternberg. Aptness in Metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13:27-55, 1981.
(159) Tourangeau, R. J. Sternberg. Understanding and Appreciating Metaphors. Cognition 11: 203-244, 1982.
(160) Turner, Mark.“Conceptual Integration”in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 12, 2007.
(161) Ulmann , S. The Principles of Semantics (2nd ed.). London: Basil Blackwell, 1957.
(162) Unger, Christoph. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence—The Pragmatics of Discourse Type.北京:世界图书出版公司,2008,10
(163) Ungerer, F & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001, 9
(164) Verbrugge, R. & McCarrell, N. Metaphor comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology 9: 494-533, 1977.
(165) Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 60-69, 2000.
(166) Vosniadou, S., Context and the Development of Metaphor Comprehension, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4(2):159-71, 1989.
(167) Weinrich, U. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Substance and Structure of Language. Puhvel, J.,ed., Los Angeles: University of California Press,1958.
(168) Wheelwright, P. Metaphor and Reality. Indiana University Press, 1962.
(169) Whitney, W. D. The Life and Growth of Language. New York: Appleton, 1875.
(170) Wilson, D. Relevance and Communication,《现代外语》,2000, 2
(171) Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding, in Brown et al. 1994: 35-58. First published in Guijarro Morales, 1994a.
(172) Wilson, D. Truth, Coherence and Relevance. Paper delivered to the European Society for Philosophpy and Psychology, 1994b.
(173) Wilson, Robert R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
(174) Winter, Steven L. A clearing in the forest. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 230-244, 1995.
(175) Wood, J. T. Communication Theories in Action: An Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.
(176) Wood, J. T. Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: commonalities and divergences, Woman & Language, 10-15, 2005, 28.
(177) Yu Ning, The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1996.
(178) Yule, George. Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000, 3
(179)白解红.语境与语用研究,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》,2000,3.
(180)陈家旭.《英汉隐喻认知对比研究》,上海:学林出版社,2007, 8
(181)冯翠华.《英语修辞大全》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995,12
(182)高远,李福印.《乔治.莱可夫认知语言学十讲》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007,4
(183)何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000, 3
(184)何兆熊.《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003, 9
(185)何自然,冉永平.《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,2002, 6
(186)何自然,冉永平.《语用与认知—关联理论研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
(187)何自然,谢朝群,陈新仁.《语用三论:关联论顺应论模因论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007, 12
(188)何自然、于国栋.语用学的理解—Jef Verschueren的新作评价,《现代外语》,1999,4
(189)何自然.《认知语用学—言语交际的认知研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,6
(190)胡壮麟.《认知隐喻学》,北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
(191)姜望琪.《语用学—理论及应用》,北京:北京大学出版社,2000, 1
(192)加达默尔.《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
(193)蒋勇,马玉蕾. CB与RT的整合性研究,《外语学刊》, 31-36,2003,1
(194)蓝纯. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press, 2-10, 40-41, 2008.
(195)李福印.《认知语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社,2008,12
(196)李占喜.《关联与顺应:翻译过程研究》,北京:科学出版社,2007, 1
(197)梁工.《圣经视阈中的东西方文学》,北京:商务印书馆, 105-107, 2007,3.
(198)梁工.《圣经叙事艺术研究》,北京:商务印书馆,333-338, 2006, 7.
(199)廖巧云.《C-R-A模式:言语交际的三维阐释》,上海外国语大学博士论文,2005, 5.
(200)刘法公.《隐喻汉英翻译原则研究》,北京:国防工业出版社,2008,11
(201)刘锋.圣言、隐喻和意义的诠释.《四川外语学院学报》,2007,3.
(202)刘意青.《圣经的文学阐释》,北京:北京大学出版社,2004,3
(203)刘正光.《隐喻的认知研究—理论与实践》,长沙:湖南人民出版社,2007, 4
(204)梅美莲.《小说交际语用研究》,杭州:浙江大学出版社,2008, 5
(205)沈家煊.《不对称和标记论》,南昌:江西教育出版社,4-6,1999.
(206)沈家煊.《认知与汉语语法研究》,北京:商务印书馆,2006,12
(207)束定芳.《隐喻学研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
(208)苏立昌.《认知语言学与意义理论—隐喻与意义理论研究》,天津:南开大学出版社,82-83,2007.
(209)孙亚.《语用和认知概论》,北京:北京大学出版社,2008,9
(210)王磊.《圣经寓言故事的认知阐释》,上海外国语大学博士论文,2008,12.
(211)王文斌.《隐喻的认知构建与解读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007,11
(212)王寅.《认知语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,350-430,2007.
(213)王寅.《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001,10
(214)王正元.《概念整合理论及其应用研究》,北京:高等教育出版社,2009, 2
(215)魏在江.《英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究》,上海:复旦大学出版社,2007,10
(216)熊学亮.《认知语用学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999, 6
(217)徐章宏.《隐喻话语理解的语用认知研究》,北京:科学出版社,2007, 1
(218)亚里士多德.《诗学》,北京:商务印书馆,1996
(219)幺孝颖.《仿拟话语的认知语用研究》,北京:国防工业出版社,2008,11
(220)叶舒宪.《圣经比喻》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
(221)尹丕安,李健,延宏.基于效应决策模式的认知言语交际分析《,安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010,1.
(222)尹丕安.《跨文化交际—理论与实践》,西安:西北工业大学出版社,2007,3
(223)尹丕安.从话语的认知层面解析翻译与语言的表层结构和深层结构,《外语教学》,2004, 5
(224)尹丕安.从认知语境及关联的视角探讨翻译文本的建构,《西安石油大学学报》(社科版),2007, 3
(225)尹丕安.基于模因论的知识转移进程分析,《情报理论与实践》,2010,8
(226)尹丕安.模因论与隐喻的认知理据,《西安外国语大学学报》,2005,6
(227)尹丕安.顺应-关联连续体下的语境和语义动态性分析,《语言教学与研究》,2007,3
(228)尹丕安.言语交际和传输过程中的话语原则分析,《西安外国语大学学报》,2008,3
(229)张朝柯.《圣经与希伯来民间文学》,北京:东方出版社,1-5, 2004, 1
(230)张蓊荟.《认知视阈下英文小说汉译中隐喻翻译的模式及评估》,北京:中国文联出版社,2009, 4
(231)赵虹.《言语反讽的关联理论研究—傲慢与偏见个案分析》,济南:山东大学出版社,2008,12
(232)张辉.《熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究》,军事谊文出版社,2003.
(233)赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001, 3
(234) http://instapedia.com/m/
(235) http://instapedia.com/m/
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |