英汉人体词一词多义认知对比研究
|
摘要
语言的基本单位是词汇，而词汇的核心是词义，一词多义是语言中较为普遍的现象，而人体词是人类认知世界的起点，不管是中国古代哲人通过对人类认知规律的探索而提出的“近取诸身，远取诸物”，还是西方哲人认为“人是万物的尺度”都说明了“自然界”是人化了的自然界，人作为认知主体在人类的认知世界的过程中起着核心作用。因此通过英汉人体词一词多义的对比研究，对于揭示英汉民族的认知规律和思维差异具有重要的作用。
词义延伸规律的研究主要包括对英汉人体词认知取象点和词义延伸的转义范畴的研究。对英汉人体词认知取象点的研究指的是对人体词认知特征的提取，人类会根据词的所指对象在基于身体经验的基础上形成一种心理意象，也就是“认知取象”，人体名词的认知取象主要是根据形貌、位置和功能三个维度进行取象的，这种取象特征会成为词义拓展和演变的意义基因。对人体词转义范畴的研究包括人体词的转义义项所涉及的范畴的数量，同时也包括每一个范畴所涉及的义项的数量。范畴化涉及到认知主体对世界的划分标准，因此也体现了认知主体的思维模式。因此考察英汉人体词的认知取象和转义范畴就可以考察英汉民族的思维的差异性和共性。
一词多义的拓展机制是隐喻和转喻、原型范畴理论。由于隐喻和转喻是人类重要的思维模式和认知手段，因此通过对英汉人体词的词义延伸规律的比较，可以揭示中西方思维方式的差异和认知规律的异同。正如维科（1989:201）所言：“人类通过隐喻认知方式就把自己变成了整个世界。”一直以来，一词多义往往是认知语言学家内省的结果，缺乏鲜活的语料和实证研究，或者仅仅局限于单语种的研究。本研究利用权威的英汉词典，通过大量的语料和词义拓展图示证明词义的拓展并不是任意的，词义的拓展蕴含了“人是原因”的重要哲学理念，是在隐喻和转喻的基础上呈辐射式和鱼贯式向外拓展的，其中隐喻对词义延伸的影响是辐射式的，而转喻对词义的影响是鱼贯式的或叫连锁式的。
人体词是人类认知世界的起点，也是其它一切概念的起点，可称为认知的“元概念”，因此对人体词的系统考察从认知的角度来看具有溯本求源的作用。同时，语言本身是思维的反映，“思维只不过是脱去了外衣的语言”（萨丕尔《语言论》），认知语言学通过把认知主体“人”纳入研究范围，不仅是对传统理论的突破，也具有重要的触及语言本质的认知属性，目前国内外对于英汉人体词一词多义的系统化的实证认知对比研究还处于空白阶段，尤其是从认知取象点和词义拓展的转义范畴的认知对比研究还处于空白阶段，这也是本论文的选题缘由之一。
本论文把英汉人体词分成头部人体词、躯干人体词和内脏器官人体词，分别对词义延伸的数量和转义范畴两方面进行定量和定性的系统化研究。同时从头部、躯干、内脏词中分别选出具有代表性的个案进行了定性和定量的英汉对比研究，并对差异性和共性进行了原因方面的探索，这三组人体词分别是头部人体词“鼻/nose”、躯干人体词“手/hand”、内脏人体词“心/heart”，而转义范畴是根据詹卫东（2001）和崔希亮（2002）的实用主义原则和目标驱动的原则下划分为十一个范畴，希望通过个案研究促进系统化的研究。本论文的研究目标主要是揭示英汉人体词词义拓展的基本规律、认知取象的基本规律、词义拓展后的转义范畴的规律，通过英汉对比，揭示英汉民族的思维异同。
本文还阐述了英汉民族在建构词义、词义取象、认知突显方面的差异性和共性，为了更好地说明英汉人体词词义建构的过程，引入了“框架语义理论”，并通过选取英汉人体词的个案进行了实证阐释。
本文第六章把隐喻、转喻、原型和框架理论进行整合，构建英汉民族对词义认知拓展的一般规律和一词多义的“认知地图”，指出这几者认知属性的一致性。同时对一词多义出现的原因以及隐喻、转喻的工作机制进行了哲学上的反思，这种反思主要是利用中西方哲学中的相似性对一词多义进行了理论提升，指出了隐喻和转喻的哲学身份。
本论文的研究方法主要是运用定性和定量研究方法、描写与解释相结合的方法、对比研究法以及个案与系统研究相结合的方法。
总之，本研究通过把语言现象纳入认知机制而对其进行了分析和描写，通过语言的认知性质和词义演变过程中呈现出的规律性特征展现英汉民族的认知过程。本研究不仅对于了解英汉民族的认知习惯和思维特点有进一步的认识，而且对于丰富语义学理论、对词汇教学、词典编撰、英汉翻译和跨文化交际方面也具有重要的意义。
The basic unit of language is vocabulary, and the core of vocabulary is meaning.Polysemy is a very common phenomenon in language, and body terms are thecognitive starting point of human beings for the world. Based on the cognitive law,the ancient Chinese hold that “getting inspirations about what lies near from the bodyand getting inspirations about what lies afar from the universe”, and in the west,Protagoras also holds that “Man is the measure of all things”. Both indicate that thenatural world is humanized. Human beings plays a core cognitive subject role in theprocess of the cognition for the world, so the comparative study between Chinese andEnglish polysemies of body terms to reveal cognitive and thinking characteristics isvery important.
The research on semantic extension mainly includes two aspects, the cognitiveimage points and the categories of semantic extension of both English and Chinesebody terms. Based on bodily experience, human beings will make a mental imagewhich is called cognitive image according to the referents. The cognitive image ismainly based on the shape, position and function of three dimensions of the objects,and the image characteristics will become the basis of meaning extension and wordevolution. The research on the categories of semantic extension is about the categoriesthat the polysemy is involved in, including the number of all categories of semanticextension and the number of the semantic items in a category. Because categorizationis the classification of the world by cognitive subjects, it embodies the cognitive andthinking patterns of the cognitive subjects. We can explore the similarities anddifferences of cognitive and thinking patterns of both English and Chinese peoplefrom the perspective of “cognitive image” and “categories of semantic extension” ofpolysemy of both English and Chinese body terms.
The difference of cognitive images between English and Chinese people reflectsthe difference of thinking, and the similarities of cognitive image reflect thesimilarities of thinking between English and Chinese cognition.
The semantic extension mechanisms of polysemy are the metaphor andmetonymy, prototype category theory. Because metaphor and metonymy are twokinds of human thinking modes and cognitive means, through the comparison andcontrast of semantic extension laws between English and Chinese body terms, thethinking mode differences and cognitive laws similarities between English andChinese people can be revealed. For quite a long time, the research on polysemy isjust the result of linguists’ introspection, lacking fresh linguistic data and empiricalresearch, or confined to monolingual studies. This research uses authoritariandictionaries, based on lots of linguistic data and semantic extension charts anddiagrams, to reveal the laws of cognitive images and categories of semantic extension of body terms, of thinking and cognitive similarities and differences of both Englishand Chinese people, and proves the semantic extension of polysemy is not arbitrary.The semantic extension includes the important philosophical idea of “man is thereason”, based on metaphor and metonymy. The influence of metaphor on semanticextension of polysemy is radiant, and the influence of metonymy on semanticextension is just chain-like.
Body terms which are the basis of cognition of human beings are not only thecognitive starting point of human beings for the world, but also the starting point ofall other concepts. From the perspective of cognition, the systematic comparison andcontrast between English and Chinese body terms have the function to trace thesource of their cognitive characteristics. In addition, language is the reflection ofthinking. Cognitive linguistics brings the cognitive subject “human beings” into theresearch scope, and it is not only a breakthrough to traditional theory, but also has animportant function to touch the nature and essence of language cognition. Currently,the systematic empirical contrast and comparison research between English andChinese body terms is still in the blank stage, especially for the cognitive researchfrom the perspectives of cognitive images and categories of semantic extension. Thisis also one of the reasons why this topic is chosen for the dissertation.
In this dissertation, the body terms are divided into three parts based on theirlocations: the body terms of the head, the body terms of the trunk, and the body termsof the internal organs to make qualitative and quantitative analyses between Englishand Chinese body terms from the perspectives of cognitive images and categories ofsemantic extension. In addition, representative cases have been chosen from the threeparts of both English and Chinese body terms respectively to make qualitative andquantitative analyses, and the reasons for the differences and similarities betweenEnglish and Chinese body terms have been explored. The three groups of case studiesof body terms are “Bi”(“Nose”),“Shou”(“Hand”),“Xin”(“Heart”) respectively. Thecategory of semantic extension is based on ZhanWeiDong (2001) and Cui Xiliang(2002), according to the principle of pragmatism and goal-driven rule, and thesemantic extension category is divided into11categories, and hopes to promotesystematic research by case studies.
This research is mainly aimed at revealing the basic laws of both English andChinese semantic extension of body terms, through systematic comparison andcontrast, to reveal as well the differences and similarities of thinking and cognitivepatterns of English and Chinese people.
This research also illustrates the differences and similarities on the semanticconstruction, semantic image, and cognitive salience between English and Chinesepeople. To better illustrate the process of semantic construction of English and Chinese body terms, the “theory of framework” has been introduced, and theempirical interpretation of the case studies has also been analyzed.
In the sixth chapter of this dissertation, several theories, such as the metaphortheory, metonymy theory, prototype theory, and the framework theory have beenintegrated from the perspective of cognition. The general laws of semantic extensionand the cognitive map of polysemy of both English and Chinese body terms havebeen depicted. In addition, the cognitive consistency of the several theories has beenpointed out. Besides, the reasons and working mechanisms for metaphor andmetonymy have been reflected in the philosophical sense. The philosophical identityof polysemy based on metaphor and metonymy has been pointed out.
The research method of this paper is mainly using qualitative and quantitativeresearch methods, the combination of description and explanation method, thecomparative method, and the combination of case studies and systematic research.
In conclusion, this research analyzed and described some language phenomenaby introducing them into the cognitive mechanism, displaying the cognitive processesof both English and Chinese people through the analysis of the cognitive nature oflanguage and the law of semantic extension. This research can not only contribute tobetter understanding of the cognitive patterns and thinking characteristics of bothEnglish and Chinese people, but also to enriching semantic theories, to facilitating thevocabulary teaching, dictionary compilation, English-Chinese translation andcross-cultural communication.
词义延伸规律的研究主要包括对英汉人体词认知取象点和词义延伸的转义范畴的研究。对英汉人体词认知取象点的研究指的是对人体词认知特征的提取，人类会根据词的所指对象在基于身体经验的基础上形成一种心理意象，也就是“认知取象”，人体名词的认知取象主要是根据形貌、位置和功能三个维度进行取象的，这种取象特征会成为词义拓展和演变的意义基因。对人体词转义范畴的研究包括人体词的转义义项所涉及的范畴的数量，同时也包括每一个范畴所涉及的义项的数量。范畴化涉及到认知主体对世界的划分标准，因此也体现了认知主体的思维模式。因此考察英汉人体词的认知取象和转义范畴就可以考察英汉民族的思维的差异性和共性。
一词多义的拓展机制是隐喻和转喻、原型范畴理论。由于隐喻和转喻是人类重要的思维模式和认知手段，因此通过对英汉人体词的词义延伸规律的比较，可以揭示中西方思维方式的差异和认知规律的异同。正如维科（1989:201）所言：“人类通过隐喻认知方式就把自己变成了整个世界。”一直以来，一词多义往往是认知语言学家内省的结果，缺乏鲜活的语料和实证研究，或者仅仅局限于单语种的研究。本研究利用权威的英汉词典，通过大量的语料和词义拓展图示证明词义的拓展并不是任意的，词义的拓展蕴含了“人是原因”的重要哲学理念，是在隐喻和转喻的基础上呈辐射式和鱼贯式向外拓展的，其中隐喻对词义延伸的影响是辐射式的，而转喻对词义的影响是鱼贯式的或叫连锁式的。
人体词是人类认知世界的起点，也是其它一切概念的起点，可称为认知的“元概念”，因此对人体词的系统考察从认知的角度来看具有溯本求源的作用。同时，语言本身是思维的反映，“思维只不过是脱去了外衣的语言”（萨丕尔《语言论》），认知语言学通过把认知主体“人”纳入研究范围，不仅是对传统理论的突破，也具有重要的触及语言本质的认知属性，目前国内外对于英汉人体词一词多义的系统化的实证认知对比研究还处于空白阶段，尤其是从认知取象点和词义拓展的转义范畴的认知对比研究还处于空白阶段，这也是本论文的选题缘由之一。
本论文把英汉人体词分成头部人体词、躯干人体词和内脏器官人体词，分别对词义延伸的数量和转义范畴两方面进行定量和定性的系统化研究。同时从头部、躯干、内脏词中分别选出具有代表性的个案进行了定性和定量的英汉对比研究，并对差异性和共性进行了原因方面的探索，这三组人体词分别是头部人体词“鼻/nose”、躯干人体词“手/hand”、内脏人体词“心/heart”，而转义范畴是根据詹卫东（2001）和崔希亮（2002）的实用主义原则和目标驱动的原则下划分为十一个范畴，希望通过个案研究促进系统化的研究。本论文的研究目标主要是揭示英汉人体词词义拓展的基本规律、认知取象的基本规律、词义拓展后的转义范畴的规律，通过英汉对比，揭示英汉民族的思维异同。
本文还阐述了英汉民族在建构词义、词义取象、认知突显方面的差异性和共性，为了更好地说明英汉人体词词义建构的过程，引入了“框架语义理论”，并通过选取英汉人体词的个案进行了实证阐释。
本文第六章把隐喻、转喻、原型和框架理论进行整合，构建英汉民族对词义认知拓展的一般规律和一词多义的“认知地图”，指出这几者认知属性的一致性。同时对一词多义出现的原因以及隐喻、转喻的工作机制进行了哲学上的反思，这种反思主要是利用中西方哲学中的相似性对一词多义进行了理论提升，指出了隐喻和转喻的哲学身份。
本论文的研究方法主要是运用定性和定量研究方法、描写与解释相结合的方法、对比研究法以及个案与系统研究相结合的方法。
总之，本研究通过把语言现象纳入认知机制而对其进行了分析和描写，通过语言的认知性质和词义演变过程中呈现出的规律性特征展现英汉民族的认知过程。本研究不仅对于了解英汉民族的认知习惯和思维特点有进一步的认识，而且对于丰富语义学理论、对词汇教学、词典编撰、英汉翻译和跨文化交际方面也具有重要的意义。
The basic unit of language is vocabulary, and the core of vocabulary is meaning.Polysemy is a very common phenomenon in language, and body terms are thecognitive starting point of human beings for the world. Based on the cognitive law,the ancient Chinese hold that “getting inspirations about what lies near from the bodyand getting inspirations about what lies afar from the universe”, and in the west,Protagoras also holds that “Man is the measure of all things”. Both indicate that thenatural world is humanized. Human beings plays a core cognitive subject role in theprocess of the cognition for the world, so the comparative study between Chinese andEnglish polysemies of body terms to reveal cognitive and thinking characteristics isvery important.
The research on semantic extension mainly includes two aspects, the cognitiveimage points and the categories of semantic extension of both English and Chinesebody terms. Based on bodily experience, human beings will make a mental imagewhich is called cognitive image according to the referents. The cognitive image ismainly based on the shape, position and function of three dimensions of the objects,and the image characteristics will become the basis of meaning extension and wordevolution. The research on the categories of semantic extension is about the categoriesthat the polysemy is involved in, including the number of all categories of semanticextension and the number of the semantic items in a category. Because categorizationis the classification of the world by cognitive subjects, it embodies the cognitive andthinking patterns of the cognitive subjects. We can explore the similarities anddifferences of cognitive and thinking patterns of both English and Chinese peoplefrom the perspective of “cognitive image” and “categories of semantic extension” ofpolysemy of both English and Chinese body terms.
The difference of cognitive images between English and Chinese people reflectsthe difference of thinking, and the similarities of cognitive image reflect thesimilarities of thinking between English and Chinese cognition.
The semantic extension mechanisms of polysemy are the metaphor andmetonymy, prototype category theory. Because metaphor and metonymy are twokinds of human thinking modes and cognitive means, through the comparison andcontrast of semantic extension laws between English and Chinese body terms, thethinking mode differences and cognitive laws similarities between English andChinese people can be revealed. For quite a long time, the research on polysemy isjust the result of linguists’ introspection, lacking fresh linguistic data and empiricalresearch, or confined to monolingual studies. This research uses authoritariandictionaries, based on lots of linguistic data and semantic extension charts anddiagrams, to reveal the laws of cognitive images and categories of semantic extension of body terms, of thinking and cognitive similarities and differences of both Englishand Chinese people, and proves the semantic extension of polysemy is not arbitrary.The semantic extension includes the important philosophical idea of “man is thereason”, based on metaphor and metonymy. The influence of metaphor on semanticextension of polysemy is radiant, and the influence of metonymy on semanticextension is just chain-like.
Body terms which are the basis of cognition of human beings are not only thecognitive starting point of human beings for the world, but also the starting point ofall other concepts. From the perspective of cognition, the systematic comparison andcontrast between English and Chinese body terms have the function to trace thesource of their cognitive characteristics. In addition, language is the reflection ofthinking. Cognitive linguistics brings the cognitive subject “human beings” into theresearch scope, and it is not only a breakthrough to traditional theory, but also has animportant function to touch the nature and essence of language cognition. Currently,the systematic empirical contrast and comparison research between English andChinese body terms is still in the blank stage, especially for the cognitive researchfrom the perspectives of cognitive images and categories of semantic extension. Thisis also one of the reasons why this topic is chosen for the dissertation.
In this dissertation, the body terms are divided into three parts based on theirlocations: the body terms of the head, the body terms of the trunk, and the body termsof the internal organs to make qualitative and quantitative analyses between Englishand Chinese body terms from the perspectives of cognitive images and categories ofsemantic extension. In addition, representative cases have been chosen from the threeparts of both English and Chinese body terms respectively to make qualitative andquantitative analyses, and the reasons for the differences and similarities betweenEnglish and Chinese body terms have been explored. The three groups of case studiesof body terms are “Bi”(“Nose”),“Shou”(“Hand”),“Xin”(“Heart”) respectively. Thecategory of semantic extension is based on ZhanWeiDong (2001) and Cui Xiliang(2002), according to the principle of pragmatism and goal-driven rule, and thesemantic extension category is divided into11categories, and hopes to promotesystematic research by case studies.
This research is mainly aimed at revealing the basic laws of both English andChinese semantic extension of body terms, through systematic comparison andcontrast, to reveal as well the differences and similarities of thinking and cognitivepatterns of English and Chinese people.
This research also illustrates the differences and similarities on the semanticconstruction, semantic image, and cognitive salience between English and Chinesepeople. To better illustrate the process of semantic construction of English and Chinese body terms, the “theory of framework” has been introduced, and theempirical interpretation of the case studies has also been analyzed.
In the sixth chapter of this dissertation, several theories, such as the metaphortheory, metonymy theory, prototype theory, and the framework theory have beenintegrated from the perspective of cognition. The general laws of semantic extensionand the cognitive map of polysemy of both English and Chinese body terms havebeen depicted. In addition, the cognitive consistency of the several theories has beenpointed out. Besides, the reasons and working mechanisms for metaphor andmetonymy have been reflected in the philosophical sense. The philosophical identityof polysemy based on metaphor and metonymy has been pointed out.
The research method of this paper is mainly using qualitative and quantitativeresearch methods, the combination of description and explanation method, thecomparative method, and the combination of case studies and systematic research.
In conclusion, this research analyzed and described some language phenomenaby introducing them into the cognitive mechanism, displaying the cognitive processesof both English and Chinese people through the analysis of the cognitive nature oflanguage and the law of semantic extension. This research can not only contribute tobetter understanding of the cognitive patterns and thinking characteristics of bothEnglish and Chinese people, but also to enriching semantic theories, to facilitating thevocabulary teaching, dictionary compilation, English-Chinese translation andcross-cultural communication.
引文
Aristotle, Rhetoric and Poetics[M]. New York: The Modern Library.1954.
Barcelona, A. On the Plausibility of Claiming a Metonymic Motivation forConceptual Metaphor[A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at theCrossroads: a Cognitive Perspective[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Beijoint, H. Modern Lexicography: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,2000.
Bolinger,D. The Form of Language[M]. London:Longmans,1977.
Brown, Cecil H.,‘A Survey of category types in natural language’ inTsohatzidis,1990:p17-47.
Charniak, E. Artificial Intelligence Programming[M]. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associate Publisher,1980.
Clark, H.H. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T.E.Moore,Cognitivedevelopment and the aequisition of language, NewYork: Aeademic Press.1973.
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay,‘Prototype semantics: the English word LIE’, language57,26-44.1981.
Croft, W. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies[J].Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4):335-370.
Danica Skara. Body Metaphors-Reading the Body in Contemporary Culture[M]. Coll,Antropol,2004.
Daugherty, P. S. Body, Mind, and Metaphor: the Worldview of Yoruk Women of theCentral Taurus Mountains of Turkey[D], Ph Dissertation, University ofPennsylvania,1997.
Fillmore,C. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantics,1985,(6):222-254.
Fillmore,C.&B. Atkins. Towards a Frame-Based Lexicon: The Semantics of Risk andIts Neighbors[A]. A. Leher,&E.F.Kittay(eds.). Frames, Fields, and Contrast:NewEssays in Semantics and Lexical Organization[C]. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associate Publisher,1992.75-102.
Fillmore, Charles J. Frame Semantics[A]. Linguistics in the Moming Calm[C]. ed.The Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul: Hanshin,1982, p.126; pp.111-137; p111;p121.
Gardenfors,Peter, Conceptual Spaces. Manuscripts.1998.
Geeraerts， D. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Reading[M].Berlin:Mouton deGruyter,2006.
Gibbs, R.WJr.&Steen, GJ.(ed.) Metaphor in CognitiveLinguistics[M],Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999.
Goldberg. A Construction: A New Theoretical Approach to Language[J].外国语，2003,(3).1-11.(2003:1)
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy inexpression for linguistic action[A]. In Mey, J.L.&Parret,O.(eds), By Word ofMouth[C]. Belgium: University of Antwerp,1995:159-174.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy inexpression for linguistic action[A]. In Driven, R&Poring, R.(eds), Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter,2002:349-368.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy inExpression for Linguistic Action[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1-3):323-340.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy inFigurative Expression for Linguistic Action[A]. Goossens, L. et al. By Word ofMouth[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Halliday，M.A.K.&R.Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in aSocial Semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria: Deakin University,1985.
Hartmann,R. R. K. Contrastive Textology: Comparative D iscourse analysi s inApplied L inguistics, Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.1980.
Heine Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, New York/Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1997.
Heine,B.et al. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,1991.
Henle Paul. Language, Thought and Culture. Roger W. Brown and others, TheUniversity of Michigan Press,1958:8.
John R.Searle,“Metaphor” in Metaphor and Thought[M]. The University of MichiganPress,1995:94.
Johnson, Mark. The Body in Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination andreason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1987.
Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination andReason[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Katz, J.&J. Fodor. The Structure of a Semantic Theory[J]. Language,39.1963.
Kecskes, I. Contextual Meaning and Word Meaning[J].外国语，2006，(5).18-32.
Kovecses, Z. The Scope of Metaphor[A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy atthe Crossroads: a Cognitive Perspective[C]. Berlin/New york，2000.
К.Ушинский. Избранные педогогические сочинения. Т.Ⅱ. М.,1939.
Lakoff, George,‘Classifiers as a reflection of mind’ in Craig(1986),13-51.1986.
Lakoff, G.“The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” in Andrew Ortony(ed.).Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press.1993,203.
Lakoff,G.&Johnson,M. Metaphors We Live by[Ml.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress,1980.
Lakoff,G.&Johnson,M. Philosophy in the Flesh一The Embodied Mind and ItsChallenge to Western Thought [M].NewYork: Basic Books,1999.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about theMind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lakoff, G.&Turner, M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide of PoeticMetaphor[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1989.
Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. Metaphor andThought(2ndedition)[C]. Cambridge University Press,1993:202-251.
Lamb, S. Relational Network[J].外国语，2004，（2）.2-14.
Lamb, S. M. Language and Reality[M]. London: Continuum,2004.
Landa, A. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish.Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Conception.1996.
Langacker,R.W. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Grammar By RonaldLangacker[M].GaoYuan&Li Fuyin(eds.).Beijing:Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2007.
Langacker，Ronald W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites.Standford: Standford University Press.1987.
Langacker, R. W. Reference-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,4.1993.
Langacker, R. W. Grammar and Conceptualization[M].Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter.1999.
Levi-Strauss, C. Structural Anthropology[M].(translated by Jacobson and BrookeGrundfest Scheoepf). Hamnondsworth: Penguin,1972.
Lyons, J. Semantics[M].2vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977.
Martin,W. A. Frame-based Approach to Polysemy[A]. H. Cuyckens&B.Aawada(eds.)Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,1997.57-81.
Matisoff, J. A. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: AnEaasy in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations. Cahiers delinguistique-Asie orientale, vol.15n°1,1986. pp.5-57.1986.
Matisoff, J. A. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman[J]. Philadelphia: Institute forthe Study of Human Issues. Inc.1978.
Max Black,“How Metaphor Works: A Reply to Donald Davidson” in On Metaphor.1998,192.
NingYu. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity10(2),59-92.1995.
NingYu, The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. JohnBenjamin Publishing Company.1998:85.
NingYu, Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor andSymbol15(3)159-175.2000.
NingYu. What does our face mean to us. Pragmatic&Cognition.9:1,2001.
NingYu. Heart and Cognition in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Journal of Cognitionand Culture7.2007.
Northrop Frye(et al.). The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper&RowPublishers, Inc.1985.282.
Oey, M.E. Psycho-collacation in Malay: A South-East Areal Feature. Linguistics ofthe Tibeto-Burman Area13(1).1990.
Olga Velasco. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Image-Schemas: An Analysis of ConceptualInteraction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. Volume3(2001-2) P50.
Quinn, N.&D. Holland. Culture and Cognition[A]. In D. Holland&N. Quinn(eds).Cultural Models in Language and Thought[C]. Cambridge University Press.1987.
Radden, G. How Metony Are Metaphors[A]. Dirven, R.&Porings, R. Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter,2002.
Radden,G&Kovecses, Z Towards a theory of metonymy[A]. In Panther, K&RaddenG(eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjams,1999.
Radden,Gunter. How metonymic are metaphors?[A]. In A. Barcelona(ed).Metaphorand Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective[C].Berlin: Moultonde Gruyter.pp93-108.2000.
Ravin, Y.&C. Leacock. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.1936.
Rosch, Eleanor,‘principles of categorization’ in Eneanor Rosch and Barbara B. LIoyd,eds, Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale,NJ;NY:LawrenceErIbaum,27-48.1978
Rosch,Eleanor, Universals and Cultural Specifics in Human Categorization. In Brislinet al(eds.) Cross Cultural Perspectives on Learning. New York: Halsted Press.1975.
Rosch, Eleanor and Caroline B. Mervis,‘Family resemblances: studies in the internalstructure of categories’, Cognitive Psychology7,573-605.1975.
Sapir,E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[M]. New York: HarcourtBrace.1921.
Suzuki, T. Words in Context: A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture. NewYork: Condansha International.1984.
Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects ofSemantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1990.
Taylor, J.Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheories[M].Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Taylor, John. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory(2nded)[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
Taylor, J. Cognitive Grammar[M]. London: Oxford University Press,2002.
Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization: Prototype in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
Tversky, Barbara,‘Where partonomies and taxonomies meet’ inTsohatzidis(1990),334-44.
Ullmann, S. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford:Blackwell, Publishers Ltd.,1962:159
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics(2ndedition)[M].Harlow: Pearson Education Limited,2006.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
Wierzbicka, A. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford University Press.1996.
William Taylor:“Metaphor of Educational Discourse”, Metaphor of Education,Helnemann Educational Books, London,1984:8.
Zipf, George Kingsley. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort-AnIntroduction to Human Ecology[M]. New York:Hafner Publishing Company.1949.
白解红，《多义聚合现象的认知研究》，外语与外语教学，2001年12期9页。
陈嘉映，语言哲学[M].北京大学出版社，2008.
陈家旭.英汉隐喻认知对比研究[M].上海：学林出版社，2007.
程琪龙，《认知语言学概论—语言的神经认知基础》.北京：北京外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
程淑贞，汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究[J].语文教学与研究，2000(1):25,35.
陈新仁，试探“经济原则”在言语交际中的运用[J].外语学刊，1994，（1）:8-12.
崔希亮，认知语言学：研究范围和研究方法[J].《语言教学与研究》第5期.2002.
戴昭铭，文化语言学导论[M].北京：语文出版社，1996:127.
笛卡尔，第一哲学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆，1969:41.
董为光，汉语词义发展基本类型[M].武汉：华中科技大学出版社.2004.
恩斯特·卡西尔.语言与神话[M].北京：三联书店出版社，1988:127.
恩格斯，自然辩证法[M].马克思恩格斯选集第三卷，人民出版社，1972.
恩格斯，自然辩证法[M].马克思恩格斯选集第三卷，人民出版社，1972.
傅德根，威廉斯与文化领导权[J].外国文学评论，2000，（4）.
龚群虎，人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题[J].语文研究，1994（4）：42-48.
高名凯，普通语言学教程[M].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
高明乐、朱文俊，“汉语‘手’和英语‘hand’的领域转移比较”，《外语研究》第一期。
耿占春.隐喻[M].北京：东方出版社，1993.
辜正坤，中西文化比较导论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2007.
古敬恒，人体词与人的奥秘[M].北京：团结出版社.2000.
桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
何爱晶，名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习，西南大学博士论文，2009.
何雅文、许亮华，语言经济性原则下的言语交际认知思维模式探微[J].长春大学学报，2010，(11):54-56.
黑格尔，《小逻辑》[M]，贺麟译，商务印书馆，1980年。
黑格尔，《历史哲学》[M].商务印书馆，2005，第177页。
侯玲文，“心”义文化探索[J].汉语学习，2001(3):54-60.
胡明扬，语言和语言学[M].北京：语文出版社，2004.
胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
黄碧蓉.人体词语语义研究[D]，2009.上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
蒋绍愚，古汉语词汇纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社，1989。
金科芳.汉语“心”和英语“heart”语义领域转移比较[J].文教论坛，2007（10）：45-46.
蓝纯.认知语言学与隐喻研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
朱谦之.老子校释[M].北京：中华书局，1963.
李福印.认知语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2011.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
李瑛、文旭，从“头”认知—转喻、隐喻与一词多义现象研究[J],《外语教学》(3):1-5.2006.
林正军、杨忠,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J].《外语教学与研究》(5):362-367.2005.
林语堂，My Country and My People[M]. New York: John Day Company,1935.
刘正光，语言非范畴化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006。
刘正光，论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语，2002（1）。
刘正光，《隐喻的认知研究—理论与实践》[G].长沙：湖南人民出版社，2007.
卢卫中，人体隐喻化的认知特点[J].外语教学，2003（6）：24-29.
陆国强，现代英语构词[M].上海：上海译文出版社，1981。
陆俭明，隐喻、转喻散议[J],《外国语》(1):44-50.2009.
陆俭明、沈阳，《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》，北京大学出版社，第2版，2004.
陆九渊，陆九渊集[M].北京：中华书局，1980.
卢植，认知与语言[M].上海外语教育出版社，2006.
马清华，文化语义学[M].南昌：江西人民出版社.2000.
孟娜,汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D].长春：吉林大学，2007.
宁春岩，语言研究中的几个界限问题.载黄国文、张文浩（编），《语文研究群言集—祝贺王宗炎先生从教55周年》.广州：中山大学出版社，1997，59-70.
钱冠连，语言，人类最后的家园[M].北京，商务印书馆，2005.
沈家煊，转喻和转指[J].当代语言学，1999，（1）：3-15.
沈家煊.实词虚化的机制-《演化而来的语法》评介[J].当代语言学，1998，(3),45.
束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
束定芳，隐喻与换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语，2004（3）：26-34.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2008.
苏立昌.认知语言学与意义理论—隐喻与意义理论研究（英文版）[M].天津：南开大学出版社，2007.
沈家煊，《不对称和标记论》，南昌：江西教育出版社，1999a.
沈家煊.转喻和转指[J].当代语言学，(1):3-15.1999b.
孙威，浅谈西方解剖学和中医及古代哲学的关系[J].职业技术，2011（6）.
覃德英、周桂香.汉英“心”义探析[J].大学英语（学术版），2006（8）：76-79.
谭业升.论翻译中意义的认知建构[J].外国语文，2009，（1）.
田兵.多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野—探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式[J].现代外语：2003(4):340-350.
王德春.语言学概论[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997.
汪立荣，从框架理论看翻译[J].中国翻译，2005（3）.
王宁、黄易青.词源意义与词汇意义论析，北京师范大学学报第4期，2002.
王寅.什么是认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2012.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究，2003，(2).
王寅.认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究，2002（1）：82-89.
王寅.认知语言学探索[M].重庆，重庆出版社，2005.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2007.
王寅.国外神经科学最新发现对语言体验性的论证[J].外语教学，2009，(5).
维柯（朱光潜译），新科学[M].北京：商务印书馆.1989.
温格瑞尔、施密特，认知语言学导论[M].(彭利贞等译)，上海：复旦大学出版社，2009.
吴志杰，王育平，框架语义理论探索[J].语言学研究（8）：2006，142-147.
谢信一,叶蜚声译.汉语中的时间和意向[J].《国外语言学》，1991，（4）；1992,(1)(3).
亚里士多德,《修辞学》第三卷第2章，罗念生译，三联书店，1991年，第154页.
亚里士多德,《物理学》，张竹明译，商务印书馆，1982年.
闫传海、张梅娟.《英汉词汇文化对比研究》[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社，2008.
杨德龙、杨小洪，汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J].杭州师范学院学报(社会科学版)，2005(3):104-108.
杨仕哲，概述西方古代解剖学[J].中华医学杂志，2000（4）：249.
杨元刚，《英汉词语文化语义对比研究》[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008.
姚静，论人体部位在人体隐喻中的外化与内化[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学，2008.
詹卫东，确立语义范畴的原则及语义范畴的相对性，《世界汉语教学》第2期.2001.
詹人风，语言学概论[M].高等教育出版社，北京，2008.
张辉、卢卫中，认知转喻[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010，第47-50页.
张建理，汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J].修辞学习，2005（1）：40-43.
张建理，英汉“心”多义网络对比[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版），2006（3）：161-168.
张敏，认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998.
张旺熹，《汉语句法认知结构研究》，北京大学出版社，2006.
张沛，《隐喻的生命》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
张勇，德语一词多义的认知研究[M].北京：北京理工大学出版社，2012.
张镇华，《英语习语的文化内涵及其语用研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2007.
张志毅、张庆云，词汇语义学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
赵宏，英汉词汇理据对比研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文.2011.
赵红梅，汉语方言词汇语义比较研究[D].山东大学博士学位论文.2006.
赵倩，《汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因》[D].2007.
赵世开，汉英对比语法论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
赵学德，人体词语语义转移的认知研究[D].复旦大学博士论文.2010.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
周建设，亚里士多德的语义理论研究，《首都师范大学学报》，第3期.1999.
庄和诚，《英语词源趣谈》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2009.
Barcelona, A. On the Plausibility of Claiming a Metonymic Motivation forConceptual Metaphor[A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at theCrossroads: a Cognitive Perspective[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Beijoint, H. Modern Lexicography: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,2000.
Bolinger,D. The Form of Language[M]. London:Longmans,1977.
Brown, Cecil H.,‘A Survey of category types in natural language’ inTsohatzidis,1990:p17-47.
Charniak, E. Artificial Intelligence Programming[M]. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associate Publisher,1980.
Clark, H.H. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T.E.Moore,Cognitivedevelopment and the aequisition of language, NewYork: Aeademic Press.1973.
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay,‘Prototype semantics: the English word LIE’, language57,26-44.1981.
Croft, W. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies[J].Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4):335-370.
Danica Skara. Body Metaphors-Reading the Body in Contemporary Culture[M]. Coll,Antropol,2004.
Daugherty, P. S. Body, Mind, and Metaphor: the Worldview of Yoruk Women of theCentral Taurus Mountains of Turkey[D], Ph Dissertation, University ofPennsylvania,1997.
Fillmore,C. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantics,1985,(6):222-254.
Fillmore,C.&B. Atkins. Towards a Frame-Based Lexicon: The Semantics of Risk andIts Neighbors[A]. A. Leher,&E.F.Kittay(eds.). Frames, Fields, and Contrast:NewEssays in Semantics and Lexical Organization[C]. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associate Publisher,1992.75-102.
Fillmore, Charles J. Frame Semantics[A]. Linguistics in the Moming Calm[C]. ed.The Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul: Hanshin,1982, p.126; pp.111-137; p111;p121.
Gardenfors,Peter, Conceptual Spaces. Manuscripts.1998.
Geeraerts， D. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Reading[M].Berlin:Mouton deGruyter,2006.
Gibbs, R.WJr.&Steen, GJ.(ed.) Metaphor in CognitiveLinguistics[M],Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999.
Goldberg. A Construction: A New Theoretical Approach to Language[J].外国语，2003,(3).1-11.(2003:1)
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy inexpression for linguistic action[A]. In Mey, J.L.&Parret,O.(eds), By Word ofMouth[C]. Belgium: University of Antwerp,1995:159-174.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy inexpression for linguistic action[A]. In Driven, R&Poring, R.(eds), Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter,2002:349-368.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy inExpression for Linguistic Action[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1-3):323-340.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy inFigurative Expression for Linguistic Action[A]. Goossens, L. et al. By Word ofMouth[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Halliday，M.A.K.&R.Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in aSocial Semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria: Deakin University,1985.
Hartmann,R. R. K. Contrastive Textology: Comparative D iscourse analysi s inApplied L inguistics, Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.1980.
Heine Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, New York/Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1997.
Heine,B.et al. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,1991.
Henle Paul. Language, Thought and Culture. Roger W. Brown and others, TheUniversity of Michigan Press,1958:8.
John R.Searle,“Metaphor” in Metaphor and Thought[M]. The University of MichiganPress,1995:94.
Johnson, Mark. The Body in Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination andreason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1987.
Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination andReason[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Katz, J.&J. Fodor. The Structure of a Semantic Theory[J]. Language,39.1963.
Kecskes, I. Contextual Meaning and Word Meaning[J].外国语，2006，(5).18-32.
Kovecses, Z. The Scope of Metaphor[A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy atthe Crossroads: a Cognitive Perspective[C]. Berlin/New york，2000.
К.Ушинский. Избранные педогогические сочинения. Т.Ⅱ. М.,1939.
Lakoff, George,‘Classifiers as a reflection of mind’ in Craig(1986),13-51.1986.
Lakoff, G.“The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” in Andrew Ortony(ed.).Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press.1993,203.
Lakoff,G.&Johnson,M. Metaphors We Live by[Ml.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress,1980.
Lakoff,G.&Johnson,M. Philosophy in the Flesh一The Embodied Mind and ItsChallenge to Western Thought [M].NewYork: Basic Books,1999.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about theMind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lakoff, G.&Turner, M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide of PoeticMetaphor[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1989.
Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. Metaphor andThought(2ndedition)[C]. Cambridge University Press,1993:202-251.
Lamb, S. Relational Network[J].外国语，2004，（2）.2-14.
Lamb, S. M. Language and Reality[M]. London: Continuum,2004.
Landa, A. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish.Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Conception.1996.
Langacker,R.W. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Grammar By RonaldLangacker[M].GaoYuan&Li Fuyin(eds.).Beijing:Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2007.
Langacker，Ronald W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites.Standford: Standford University Press.1987.
Langacker, R. W. Reference-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,4.1993.
Langacker, R. W. Grammar and Conceptualization[M].Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter.1999.
Levi-Strauss, C. Structural Anthropology[M].(translated by Jacobson and BrookeGrundfest Scheoepf). Hamnondsworth: Penguin,1972.
Lyons, J. Semantics[M].2vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977.
Martin,W. A. Frame-based Approach to Polysemy[A]. H. Cuyckens&B.Aawada(eds.)Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,1997.57-81.
Matisoff, J. A. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: AnEaasy in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations. Cahiers delinguistique-Asie orientale, vol.15n°1,1986. pp.5-57.1986.
Matisoff, J. A. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman[J]. Philadelphia: Institute forthe Study of Human Issues. Inc.1978.
Max Black,“How Metaphor Works: A Reply to Donald Davidson” in On Metaphor.1998,192.
NingYu. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity10(2),59-92.1995.
NingYu, The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. JohnBenjamin Publishing Company.1998:85.
NingYu, Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor andSymbol15(3)159-175.2000.
NingYu. What does our face mean to us. Pragmatic&Cognition.9:1,2001.
NingYu. Heart and Cognition in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Journal of Cognitionand Culture7.2007.
Northrop Frye(et al.). The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper&RowPublishers, Inc.1985.282.
Oey, M.E. Psycho-collacation in Malay: A South-East Areal Feature. Linguistics ofthe Tibeto-Burman Area13(1).1990.
Olga Velasco. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Image-Schemas: An Analysis of ConceptualInteraction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. Volume3(2001-2) P50.
Quinn, N.&D. Holland. Culture and Cognition[A]. In D. Holland&N. Quinn(eds).Cultural Models in Language and Thought[C]. Cambridge University Press.1987.
Radden, G. How Metony Are Metaphors[A]. Dirven, R.&Porings, R. Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter,2002.
Radden,G&Kovecses, Z Towards a theory of metonymy[A]. In Panther, K&RaddenG(eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjams,1999.
Radden,Gunter. How metonymic are metaphors?[A]. In A. Barcelona(ed).Metaphorand Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective[C].Berlin: Moultonde Gruyter.pp93-108.2000.
Ravin, Y.&C. Leacock. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.1936.
Rosch, Eleanor,‘principles of categorization’ in Eneanor Rosch and Barbara B. LIoyd,eds, Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale,NJ;NY:LawrenceErIbaum,27-48.1978
Rosch,Eleanor, Universals and Cultural Specifics in Human Categorization. In Brislinet al(eds.) Cross Cultural Perspectives on Learning. New York: Halsted Press.1975.
Rosch, Eleanor and Caroline B. Mervis,‘Family resemblances: studies in the internalstructure of categories’, Cognitive Psychology7,573-605.1975.
Sapir,E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[M]. New York: HarcourtBrace.1921.
Suzuki, T. Words in Context: A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture. NewYork: Condansha International.1984.
Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects ofSemantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1990.
Taylor, J.Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheories[M].Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Taylor, John. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory(2nded)[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
Taylor, J. Cognitive Grammar[M]. London: Oxford University Press,2002.
Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization: Prototype in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
Tversky, Barbara,‘Where partonomies and taxonomies meet’ inTsohatzidis(1990),334-44.
Ullmann, S. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford:Blackwell, Publishers Ltd.,1962:159
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics(2ndedition)[M].Harlow: Pearson Education Limited,2006.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
Wierzbicka, A. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford University Press.1996.
William Taylor:“Metaphor of Educational Discourse”, Metaphor of Education,Helnemann Educational Books, London,1984:8.
Zipf, George Kingsley. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort-AnIntroduction to Human Ecology[M]. New York:Hafner Publishing Company.1949.
白解红，《多义聚合现象的认知研究》，外语与外语教学，2001年12期9页。
陈嘉映，语言哲学[M].北京大学出版社，2008.
陈家旭.英汉隐喻认知对比研究[M].上海：学林出版社，2007.
程琪龙，《认知语言学概论—语言的神经认知基础》.北京：北京外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
程淑贞，汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究[J].语文教学与研究，2000(1):25,35.
陈新仁，试探“经济原则”在言语交际中的运用[J].外语学刊，1994，（1）:8-12.
崔希亮，认知语言学：研究范围和研究方法[J].《语言教学与研究》第5期.2002.
戴昭铭，文化语言学导论[M].北京：语文出版社，1996:127.
笛卡尔，第一哲学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆，1969:41.
董为光，汉语词义发展基本类型[M].武汉：华中科技大学出版社.2004.
恩斯特·卡西尔.语言与神话[M].北京：三联书店出版社，1988:127.
恩格斯，自然辩证法[M].马克思恩格斯选集第三卷，人民出版社，1972.
恩格斯，自然辩证法[M].马克思恩格斯选集第三卷，人民出版社，1972.
傅德根，威廉斯与文化领导权[J].外国文学评论，2000，（4）.
龚群虎，人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题[J].语文研究，1994（4）：42-48.
高名凯，普通语言学教程[M].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
高明乐、朱文俊，“汉语‘手’和英语‘hand’的领域转移比较”，《外语研究》第一期。
耿占春.隐喻[M].北京：东方出版社，1993.
辜正坤，中西文化比较导论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2007.
古敬恒，人体词与人的奥秘[M].北京：团结出版社.2000.
桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
何爱晶，名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习，西南大学博士论文，2009.
何雅文、许亮华，语言经济性原则下的言语交际认知思维模式探微[J].长春大学学报，2010，(11):54-56.
黑格尔，《小逻辑》[M]，贺麟译，商务印书馆，1980年。
黑格尔，《历史哲学》[M].商务印书馆，2005，第177页。
侯玲文，“心”义文化探索[J].汉语学习，2001(3):54-60.
胡明扬，语言和语言学[M].北京：语文出版社，2004.
胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
黄碧蓉.人体词语语义研究[D]，2009.上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
蒋绍愚，古汉语词汇纲要[M].北京：北京大学出版社，1989。
金科芳.汉语“心”和英语“heart”语义领域转移比较[J].文教论坛，2007（10）：45-46.
蓝纯.认知语言学与隐喻研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
朱谦之.老子校释[M].北京：中华书局，1963.
李福印.认知语言学概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2011.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
李瑛、文旭，从“头”认知—转喻、隐喻与一词多义现象研究[J],《外语教学》(3):1-5.2006.
林正军、杨忠,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J].《外语教学与研究》(5):362-367.2005.
林语堂，My Country and My People[M]. New York: John Day Company,1935.
刘正光，语言非范畴化[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006。
刘正光，论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语，2002（1）。
刘正光，《隐喻的认知研究—理论与实践》[G].长沙：湖南人民出版社，2007.
卢卫中，人体隐喻化的认知特点[J].外语教学，2003（6）：24-29.
陆国强，现代英语构词[M].上海：上海译文出版社，1981。
陆俭明，隐喻、转喻散议[J],《外国语》(1):44-50.2009.
陆俭明、沈阳，《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》，北京大学出版社，第2版，2004.
陆九渊，陆九渊集[M].北京：中华书局，1980.
卢植，认知与语言[M].上海外语教育出版社，2006.
马清华，文化语义学[M].南昌：江西人民出版社.2000.
孟娜,汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D].长春：吉林大学，2007.
宁春岩，语言研究中的几个界限问题.载黄国文、张文浩（编），《语文研究群言集—祝贺王宗炎先生从教55周年》.广州：中山大学出版社，1997，59-70.
钱冠连，语言，人类最后的家园[M].北京，商务印书馆，2005.
沈家煊，转喻和转指[J].当代语言学，1999，（1）：3-15.
沈家煊.实词虚化的机制-《演化而来的语法》评介[J].当代语言学，1998，(3),45.
束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
束定芳，隐喻与换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语，2004（3）：26-34.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2008.
苏立昌.认知语言学与意义理论—隐喻与意义理论研究（英文版）[M].天津：南开大学出版社，2007.
沈家煊，《不对称和标记论》，南昌：江西教育出版社，1999a.
沈家煊.转喻和转指[J].当代语言学，(1):3-15.1999b.
孙威，浅谈西方解剖学和中医及古代哲学的关系[J].职业技术，2011（6）.
覃德英、周桂香.汉英“心”义探析[J].大学英语（学术版），2006（8）：76-79.
谭业升.论翻译中意义的认知建构[J].外国语文，2009，（1）.
田兵.多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野—探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式[J].现代外语：2003(4):340-350.
王德春.语言学概论[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997.
汪立荣，从框架理论看翻译[J].中国翻译，2005（3）.
王宁、黄易青.词源意义与词汇意义论析，北京师范大学学报第4期，2002.
王寅.什么是认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2012.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分析[J].外语教学与研究，2003，(2).
王寅.认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究，2002（1）：82-89.
王寅.认知语言学探索[M].重庆，重庆出版社，2005.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2007.
王寅.国外神经科学最新发现对语言体验性的论证[J].外语教学，2009，(5).
维柯（朱光潜译），新科学[M].北京：商务印书馆.1989.
温格瑞尔、施密特，认知语言学导论[M].(彭利贞等译)，上海：复旦大学出版社，2009.
吴志杰，王育平，框架语义理论探索[J].语言学研究（8）：2006，142-147.
谢信一,叶蜚声译.汉语中的时间和意向[J].《国外语言学》，1991，（4）；1992,(1)(3).
亚里士多德,《修辞学》第三卷第2章，罗念生译，三联书店，1991年，第154页.
亚里士多德,《物理学》，张竹明译，商务印书馆，1982年.
闫传海、张梅娟.《英汉词汇文化对比研究》[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社，2008.
杨德龙、杨小洪，汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J].杭州师范学院学报(社会科学版)，2005(3):104-108.
杨仕哲，概述西方古代解剖学[J].中华医学杂志，2000（4）：249.
杨元刚，《英汉词语文化语义对比研究》[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008.
姚静，论人体部位在人体隐喻中的外化与内化[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学，2008.
詹卫东，确立语义范畴的原则及语义范畴的相对性，《世界汉语教学》第2期.2001.
詹人风，语言学概论[M].高等教育出版社，北京，2008.
张辉、卢卫中，认知转喻[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010，第47-50页.
张建理，汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J].修辞学习，2005（1）：40-43.
张建理，英汉“心”多义网络对比[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版），2006（3）：161-168.
张敏，认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998.
张旺熹，《汉语句法认知结构研究》，北京大学出版社，2006.
张沛，《隐喻的生命》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
张勇，德语一词多义的认知研究[M].北京：北京理工大学出版社，2012.
张镇华，《英语习语的文化内涵及其语用研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2007.
张志毅、张庆云，词汇语义学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
赵宏，英汉词汇理据对比研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文.2011.
赵红梅，汉语方言词汇语义比较研究[D].山东大学博士学位论文.2006.
赵倩，《汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因》[D].2007.
赵世开，汉英对比语法论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
赵学德，人体词语语义转移的认知研究[D].复旦大学博士论文.2010.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
周建设，亚里士多德的语义理论研究，《首都师范大学学报》，第3期.1999.
庄和诚，《英语词源趣谈》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2009.