中英情感隐喻对比研究
|
摘要
隐喻历来被看作是一种特殊的修辞手段，是有异于普通语言的诗歌语言。
但仅仅把隐喻作为修辞手段或语言现象来研究是很不够的，因为隐喻是人类思
维的重要手段，参与了人类的认知过程。我们每时每刻的思维与认知活动无不
与隐喻有着密切的联系。隐喻究其本质是一种认知现象，起着重要的认知功能：
隐喻首先提供我们理解、观察自然世界的途径；其次隐喻能使人类经验概念化；
另外，隐喻能创造新的意义，表达新的思想。因此，隐喻远不止是一种修辞，
它事实上是人类生存主要的和基本的方式。隐喻借助于一个概念领域去说明或
理解另一个概念领域，或者说是概念领域之间的映现。在此意义上，隐喻是指
人们思维和行为的方式——隐喻概念或概念隐喻。
概念隐喻是认知语言学的一个重要概念，它是从一般日常用语中总结归纳
出来的，是内在的东西，例如“争论是战争”、“时间是金钱”等等；而语言使
用中的隐喻只是其外在的表现，是由概念隐喻派生出来的。据统计，日常语言
中大约70％的表达方式是源于隐喻概念。所以，从根本上说语言也是隐喻性的。
通过研究日常语言从而探究概念隐喻的形成具有很大的必要性。概念隐喻，就
其分类而言，主要包括以下三种：结构性隐喻、方位性隐喻、本体化隐喻。而
且，概念隐喻具有系统性、与文化一致性两大特点。总而言之，概念隐喻使人
们能够用熟悉的、具体的思想或概念去理解复杂的、抽象的或不那么确定的概
念。
情感，作为人类经验的重要组成部分，一直是认知语言学研究的重点课题。
情感并不是难以言状的，而是蕴含着丰富的概念内容。这一概念内容由隐喻的
复杂网络所构建，所以要系统地研究情感的概念组织，理应从隐喻的视角加以
理解，并对与之相关的表达形式进行分类细化。基于以上因素，本文以情感概
念隐喻作为研究课题，另外，针对情感隐喻的研究主要来源于对英语语料的分
析，并只局限于喜、怒两大情感这一状况，本文试图在跨语言层面上对情感概
念隐喻进行对比研究：通过对大量英汉语料的分析，着重研究喜、怒、哀、惧
四种人类基本情感在英汉语中的概念隐喻表达的异同。研究发现，英汉语使用
0。自霎霎，1 妩／壹仟二卜十
＼毛自目回／jJ”人二L 寸．二二乙人
＼。。。、。／V巧丁ER S 二H日引
了许多相同的概念隐喻，如：英汉语中都有愤怒是热这一概念隐喻，关于悲伤
情感，英汉语中都存在着悲伤是向下，悲伤是黑暗，悲伤是容器中的流体，悲
伤是疾病，悲伤是负担这些隐喻。这些相似点揭示了英汉隐喻同样源于身体体
验，具有共同的心理、生理基础；同时，英汉语在其他具体的隐喻表达上存在
着很大差异，如：在愤怒是热这一中心隐喻下，英语、汉语分别采用不同的次
隐喻：英语中为愤怒是火和愤怒是容器中的热流体，汉语中为愤怒是火和愤怒
是容器中的热气体；在具体描述情感时，汉语倾向于使用更多的人体器官，尤
其是人体内部器官。这一结果反映了情感概念隐喻受不同文化背景、社会习俗
影响，呈现出一定的文化差异，带有民族文化特点，必须深究英汉各自不同的
文化模式。本文主要从中国哲学的阴阳说以及传统中医理论对这些差异做出解
释。
这项研究一反隐喻理论的传统观点，从认知的角度对情感隐喻作了较为全
面的论述；特别是通过大量英汉对比，从汉语的角度进一步证实和发展了当代
隐喻理论，即抽象概念主要是通过隐喻来形成和理解的，而概念隐喻，至少是
情感概念隐喻存在着认知普遍性以及文化相对性。同时，这项研究将在一定程
度上对语言的词汇教学、修辞教学起到指导作用。
Metaphor is traditionally viewed as a particular rhetoric device, employed especially in poetry. However, it is not enough just to study it as a rhetoric means or a linguistic phenomenon, for metaphor, as an important means of man抯 thinking, is involved in human cognitive process. In essence, metaphor is a perceptual and conceptualizing tool, by which man understands the changing world around. Therefore, metaphor, to be exact, belongs to a cognitive rather than a linguistic phenomenon. Whereby, it plays important cognitive functions: metaphor, first of all, falls into one of the fundamental devices for us to perceive the world we live in; secondly, metaphor serves as an important means to conceptualize experience; moreover, metaphor is an efficient source of new meanings and new ideas and thus makes it possible for us to view things involved in a new perspective. In short, metaphor has actually gone beyond the language and become an essential way by which man lives. As a basic cognitive structure, metaphor
allows us to comprehend a relatively abstract concept by virtue of a more concrete concept, which is thus called conceptual metaphor.
Conceptual metaphor, as an important concept in cognitive linguistics, refers to something internal, operating deep in human thought, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR and TIME IS MONEY Each conceptual metaphor heads and governs a system of linguistic metaphors, while metaphorical expressions in language are merely sufface manifestations of our underlying systematic conceptual metaphors. According to statistics, about 70 per cent of expressions in our daily language are derived from conceptual metaphors. In this sense, language is also primarily metaphorical in nature and studies on conceptual metaphors through analysis of linguistic expressions are really worthy of much attention and great efforts. Conceptual metaphors can be classified into three main types, namely, structural metaphors, orientational metaphors and ontological metaphors. With regard to the features, conceptual metaphors embody two prominent ones: systematicity and cultural coherence.
Emotions, as an important aspect of human experience, have been among the focuses of cognitive linguistics. Emotions are conceptualized and expressed in metaphorical terms. In view of these factors, this paper takes up emotion conceptual metaphor as its topic to study. In addition, owing to the fact that extensive studies on emotions have mainly been done within the language of English and much
II
Cr
attention has only been attached to two emotions梐nger and happiness, this paper attempts to conduct a cross-linguistic research into the conceptualization of emotion concepts. Based on the analysis of a large amount of linguistic data from English and Chinese, it tends to explore the similarities and differences between Chinese and English in terms of conceptual metaphors of four basic emotions including happiness, anger, sadness and fear. The research discovers that Chinese and English share many main conceptual metaphors. Take ANGER for example. Both English and Chinese utilize ANGER IS HEAT metaphor; in the respect of SADNESS, Chinese and English have DOWN, DARK, CONTAiNER, DISEASE and BURDEN metaphors in common etc. These similarities reflect the fact that conceptual metaphors both in Chinese and in English are primarily rooted in common human bodily experiences. Meanwhile, there still exist great differences in other conceptual metaphors and some specific linguistic expressions, such as, under the same
conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEAT, English adopts FIRE and FLUID metaphors, while Chinese selects FIRE and GAS metaphors. More evidently, in contrast to English, Chinese tends to use more body parts, especially internal organs in conceptualizing those emotions. These differences are largely due to different cultural models, since the bodily experience can only tell what are possible metaphors, and whether these potential metaphors are actually selected in a specific culture is mainly dependent upon the cul
但仅仅把隐喻作为修辞手段或语言现象来研究是很不够的，因为隐喻是人类思
维的重要手段，参与了人类的认知过程。我们每时每刻的思维与认知活动无不
与隐喻有着密切的联系。隐喻究其本质是一种认知现象，起着重要的认知功能：
隐喻首先提供我们理解、观察自然世界的途径；其次隐喻能使人类经验概念化；
另外，隐喻能创造新的意义，表达新的思想。因此，隐喻远不止是一种修辞，
它事实上是人类生存主要的和基本的方式。隐喻借助于一个概念领域去说明或
理解另一个概念领域，或者说是概念领域之间的映现。在此意义上，隐喻是指
人们思维和行为的方式——隐喻概念或概念隐喻。
概念隐喻是认知语言学的一个重要概念，它是从一般日常用语中总结归纳
出来的，是内在的东西，例如“争论是战争”、“时间是金钱”等等；而语言使
用中的隐喻只是其外在的表现，是由概念隐喻派生出来的。据统计，日常语言
中大约70％的表达方式是源于隐喻概念。所以，从根本上说语言也是隐喻性的。
通过研究日常语言从而探究概念隐喻的形成具有很大的必要性。概念隐喻，就
其分类而言，主要包括以下三种：结构性隐喻、方位性隐喻、本体化隐喻。而
且，概念隐喻具有系统性、与文化一致性两大特点。总而言之，概念隐喻使人
们能够用熟悉的、具体的思想或概念去理解复杂的、抽象的或不那么确定的概
念。
情感，作为人类经验的重要组成部分，一直是认知语言学研究的重点课题。
情感并不是难以言状的，而是蕴含着丰富的概念内容。这一概念内容由隐喻的
复杂网络所构建，所以要系统地研究情感的概念组织，理应从隐喻的视角加以
理解，并对与之相关的表达形式进行分类细化。基于以上因素，本文以情感概
念隐喻作为研究课题，另外，针对情感隐喻的研究主要来源于对英语语料的分
析，并只局限于喜、怒两大情感这一状况，本文试图在跨语言层面上对情感概
念隐喻进行对比研究：通过对大量英汉语料的分析，着重研究喜、怒、哀、惧
四种人类基本情感在英汉语中的概念隐喻表达的异同。研究发现，英汉语使用
0。自霎霎，1 妩／壹仟二卜十
＼毛自目回／jJ”人二L 寸．二二乙人
＼。。。、。／V巧丁ER S 二H日引
了许多相同的概念隐喻，如：英汉语中都有愤怒是热这一概念隐喻，关于悲伤
情感，英汉语中都存在着悲伤是向下，悲伤是黑暗，悲伤是容器中的流体，悲
伤是疾病，悲伤是负担这些隐喻。这些相似点揭示了英汉隐喻同样源于身体体
验，具有共同的心理、生理基础；同时，英汉语在其他具体的隐喻表达上存在
着很大差异，如：在愤怒是热这一中心隐喻下，英语、汉语分别采用不同的次
隐喻：英语中为愤怒是火和愤怒是容器中的热流体，汉语中为愤怒是火和愤怒
是容器中的热气体；在具体描述情感时，汉语倾向于使用更多的人体器官，尤
其是人体内部器官。这一结果反映了情感概念隐喻受不同文化背景、社会习俗
影响，呈现出一定的文化差异，带有民族文化特点，必须深究英汉各自不同的
文化模式。本文主要从中国哲学的阴阳说以及传统中医理论对这些差异做出解
释。
这项研究一反隐喻理论的传统观点，从认知的角度对情感隐喻作了较为全
面的论述；特别是通过大量英汉对比，从汉语的角度进一步证实和发展了当代
隐喻理论，即抽象概念主要是通过隐喻来形成和理解的，而概念隐喻，至少是
情感概念隐喻存在着认知普遍性以及文化相对性。同时，这项研究将在一定程
度上对语言的词汇教学、修辞教学起到指导作用。
Metaphor is traditionally viewed as a particular rhetoric device, employed especially in poetry. However, it is not enough just to study it as a rhetoric means or a linguistic phenomenon, for metaphor, as an important means of man抯 thinking, is involved in human cognitive process. In essence, metaphor is a perceptual and conceptualizing tool, by which man understands the changing world around. Therefore, metaphor, to be exact, belongs to a cognitive rather than a linguistic phenomenon. Whereby, it plays important cognitive functions: metaphor, first of all, falls into one of the fundamental devices for us to perceive the world we live in; secondly, metaphor serves as an important means to conceptualize experience; moreover, metaphor is an efficient source of new meanings and new ideas and thus makes it possible for us to view things involved in a new perspective. In short, metaphor has actually gone beyond the language and become an essential way by which man lives. As a basic cognitive structure, metaphor
allows us to comprehend a relatively abstract concept by virtue of a more concrete concept, which is thus called conceptual metaphor.
Conceptual metaphor, as an important concept in cognitive linguistics, refers to something internal, operating deep in human thought, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR and TIME IS MONEY Each conceptual metaphor heads and governs a system of linguistic metaphors, while metaphorical expressions in language are merely sufface manifestations of our underlying systematic conceptual metaphors. According to statistics, about 70 per cent of expressions in our daily language are derived from conceptual metaphors. In this sense, language is also primarily metaphorical in nature and studies on conceptual metaphors through analysis of linguistic expressions are really worthy of much attention and great efforts. Conceptual metaphors can be classified into three main types, namely, structural metaphors, orientational metaphors and ontological metaphors. With regard to the features, conceptual metaphors embody two prominent ones: systematicity and cultural coherence.
Emotions, as an important aspect of human experience, have been among the focuses of cognitive linguistics. Emotions are conceptualized and expressed in metaphorical terms. In view of these factors, this paper takes up emotion conceptual metaphor as its topic to study. In addition, owing to the fact that extensive studies on emotions have mainly been done within the language of English and much
II
Cr
attention has only been attached to two emotions梐nger and happiness, this paper attempts to conduct a cross-linguistic research into the conceptualization of emotion concepts. Based on the analysis of a large amount of linguistic data from English and Chinese, it tends to explore the similarities and differences between Chinese and English in terms of conceptual metaphors of four basic emotions including happiness, anger, sadness and fear. The research discovers that Chinese and English share many main conceptual metaphors. Take ANGER for example. Both English and Chinese utilize ANGER IS HEAT metaphor; in the respect of SADNESS, Chinese and English have DOWN, DARK, CONTAiNER, DISEASE and BURDEN metaphors in common etc. These similarities reflect the fact that conceptual metaphors both in Chinese and in English are primarily rooted in common human bodily experiences. Meanwhile, there still exist great differences in other conceptual metaphors and some specific linguistic expressions, such as, under the same
conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEAT, English adopts FIRE and FLUID metaphors, while Chinese selects FIRE and GAS metaphors. More evidently, in contrast to English, Chinese tends to use more body parts, especially internal organs in conceptualizing those emotions. These differences are largely due to different cultural models, since the bodily experience can only tell what are possible metaphors, and whether these potential metaphors are actually selected in a specific culture is mainly dependent upon the cul
引文
( 1 ) Black, Max. 1962． Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
( 2 ) Black, Max. 1980． More about Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony(ed), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 19-41．
( 3 ) Booth, Wayne C. 1978． Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation. In Sheldon Sacks, On Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 47-70．
( 4 ) Cheshire, Calhoun, and Solomon Robert C. 1984． What is an Emotion? New York: Oxford University Press.
( 5 ) Dil, Anwar. 1980． Language and Cultural Description: Essays by Charles O. Frake. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
( 6 ) Donald, Davidson. 1980． What Metaphors Mean. In Mark Platts, Reference, Truth and Reality. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
( 7 ) Embler, Weller. 1996． Metaphor and Meaning. Everett/Edwards Inc.
( 8 ) Fesmire, Steven A. 1994． Aerating the Mind: The Metaphor of Mental Functioning as Bodily Functioning. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. No.9．
( 9 ) Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. 1985． Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Waveland Press Inc.
( 10 ) Gibbs, R.W. 1994． The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 11 ) Goddard, Cliff. 1998． Semantic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
( 12 ) Johnson, Mark. 1987． The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning,
Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 13 ) Kirsten, Malmkjaer I. 1991． The Linguistics Encyclopaedia. London: Routledge.
( 14 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1986． Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
( 15 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1988． The language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in Conversational English. Lewisburg, PA: Buchnell University Press.
( 16 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1990． Emotion Concepts. New York: Spinger-Verlag.
( 17 ) Lakoff, George. 1987． Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 18 ) Lakoff, George. 1990． The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics No.1．
( 19 ) Lakoff, George. 1993． The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony Andrew(ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 20 ) Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980． Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 21 ) Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989． More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 22 ) Langacker, Ronald W. 1988． Review of Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, by George Lakoff. Language Vol.64． NO.2．
( 23 ) Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988． The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 24 ) Persson, Gunnar. 1990． Meanings, Models and Metaphors. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
(25) Quinn, Naomi. 1991. The Cultural Basis of Metaphor. In James W. Fernandez(ed.), Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(26) Richards, I.A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. In Mark Johnson. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
(27) Ricoeur, P. 1978. The Rule of Metaphor. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
(28) Russell, James A., José-Miguel Ferández-Dols, and Antony S.R. Manstead. 1995. Everyday Conceptions of Emotion: An Introduction to the Psychology, Anthropology and Linguistics of Emotion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
(29) Sacks, Sheldon. 1978. On Metaphor. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
(30) Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
(31) Taylor, John R. 1989. Liguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
(32) Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, Culture and Cognitive. New York: Oxford University Press.
(33) White, R.M. 1996. The Structure of Metaphor. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
(34) Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jorg Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
(35) Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Pespective from Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(36) 常敬宇，1995，《汉语词汇与文化》，北京大学出版社，北京。
(37) 陈道明，1998，“从习语的可分析性看认知语言学的隐喻能力观”，《外国语》，第2期。
(38) 胡曙中，1999，《英汉修辞比较研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(39) 胡曙中，1999，《美国新修辞学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(40) 胡壮麟，1997，“语言．认知．隐喻”，《现代外语》，第4期。
(41) 林书武，1997，“国外隐喻研究综述”，《外语教学与研究》，第1期。
(42) 林书武，1998，“‘愤怒’的概念隐喻”，《外语与外语教学》，第2期。
(43) 林肖瑜，1994，“隐喻的抽象思维功能”，《现代外语》，第4期。
(44) 马清华，2000，“隐喻意义的取象与文化认知”，《外语教学与研究》。第4期。
(45) 宁全新，1998，“‘Anger’与隐喻”，《外国语》，第5期。
(46) 束定芳，2000，《隐喻学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(47) 谢之君，2000，“隐喻：从修辞格到认知”，《外语与外语教学》，第3期。
(48) 温科学，1995，“英汉隐喻对比研究”，《外语教学》，第3期。
(49) 张辉，祝良，1999，“认知语言学概述”，《外语研究》，第2期。
(50) 张敏，1998，《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》，中国社会科学出版社，北京。
(51) 张小乔，1991，《普通心理学应用教程》，中国人民大学出版社，北京
(52) 章士嵘，卢婉清，蒙登进等，1984，《认知论辞典》，吉林人民出版社，长春。
(53) 赵艳芳，1994，“隐喻的认知基础”，《解放军外语学院学报》，第2期。
(54) 赵艳芳，1995，“语言的隐喻认知结构”，《外语教学与研究》，第3期。
(55) 朱小安，1994，“试论隐喻概念”，《解放军外语学院学报》，第3期。
( 2 ) Black, Max. 1980． More about Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony(ed), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 19-41．
( 3 ) Booth, Wayne C. 1978． Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation. In Sheldon Sacks, On Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 47-70．
( 4 ) Cheshire, Calhoun, and Solomon Robert C. 1984． What is an Emotion? New York: Oxford University Press.
( 5 ) Dil, Anwar. 1980． Language and Cultural Description: Essays by Charles O. Frake. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
( 6 ) Donald, Davidson. 1980． What Metaphors Mean. In Mark Platts, Reference, Truth and Reality. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
( 7 ) Embler, Weller. 1996． Metaphor and Meaning. Everett/Edwards Inc.
( 8 ) Fesmire, Steven A. 1994． Aerating the Mind: The Metaphor of Mental Functioning as Bodily Functioning. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. No.9．
( 9 ) Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. 1985． Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Waveland Press Inc.
( 10 ) Gibbs, R.W. 1994． The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 11 ) Goddard, Cliff. 1998． Semantic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
( 12 ) Johnson, Mark. 1987． The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning,
Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 13 ) Kirsten, Malmkjaer I. 1991． The Linguistics Encyclopaedia. London: Routledge.
( 14 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1986． Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
( 15 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1988． The language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in Conversational English. Lewisburg, PA: Buchnell University Press.
( 16 ) Kovecses, Zoltan. 1990． Emotion Concepts. New York: Spinger-Verlag.
( 17 ) Lakoff, George. 1987． Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 18 ) Lakoff, George. 1990． The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics No.1．
( 19 ) Lakoff, George. 1993． The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony Andrew(ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 20 ) Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980． Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 21 ) Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989． More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
( 22 ) Langacker, Ronald W. 1988． Review of Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, by George Lakoff. Language Vol.64． NO.2．
( 23 ) Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988． The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
( 24 ) Persson, Gunnar. 1990． Meanings, Models and Metaphors. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
(25) Quinn, Naomi. 1991. The Cultural Basis of Metaphor. In James W. Fernandez(ed.), Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(26) Richards, I.A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. In Mark Johnson. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
(27) Ricoeur, P. 1978. The Rule of Metaphor. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
(28) Russell, James A., José-Miguel Ferández-Dols, and Antony S.R. Manstead. 1995. Everyday Conceptions of Emotion: An Introduction to the Psychology, Anthropology and Linguistics of Emotion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
(29) Sacks, Sheldon. 1978. On Metaphor. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
(30) Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
(31) Taylor, John R. 1989. Liguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
(32) Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, Culture and Cognitive. New York: Oxford University Press.
(33) White, R.M. 1996. The Structure of Metaphor. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
(34) Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jorg Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
(35) Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Pespective from Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(36) 常敬宇，1995，《汉语词汇与文化》，北京大学出版社，北京。
(37) 陈道明，1998，“从习语的可分析性看认知语言学的隐喻能力观”，《外国语》，第2期。
(38) 胡曙中，1999，《英汉修辞比较研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(39) 胡曙中，1999，《美国新修辞学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(40) 胡壮麟，1997，“语言．认知．隐喻”，《现代外语》，第4期。
(41) 林书武，1997，“国外隐喻研究综述”，《外语教学与研究》，第1期。
(42) 林书武，1998，“‘愤怒’的概念隐喻”，《外语与外语教学》，第2期。
(43) 林肖瑜，1994，“隐喻的抽象思维功能”，《现代外语》，第4期。
(44) 马清华，2000，“隐喻意义的取象与文化认知”，《外语教学与研究》。第4期。
(45) 宁全新，1998，“‘Anger’与隐喻”，《外国语》，第5期。
(46) 束定芳，2000，《隐喻学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，上海。
(47) 谢之君，2000，“隐喻：从修辞格到认知”，《外语与外语教学》，第3期。
(48) 温科学，1995，“英汉隐喻对比研究”，《外语教学》，第3期。
(49) 张辉，祝良，1999，“认知语言学概述”，《外语研究》，第2期。
(50) 张敏，1998，《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》，中国社会科学出版社，北京。
(51) 张小乔，1991，《普通心理学应用教程》，中国人民大学出版社，北京
(52) 章士嵘，卢婉清，蒙登进等，1984，《认知论辞典》，吉林人民出版社，长春。
(53) 赵艳芳，1994，“隐喻的认知基础”，《解放军外语学院学报》，第2期。
(54) 赵艳芳，1995，“语言的隐喻认知结构”，《外语教学与研究》，第3期。
(55) 朱小安，1994，“试论隐喻概念”，《解放军外语学院学报》，第3期。