汉语隐喻具身认知加工神经机制的ERP研究
|
摘要
隐喻既是一种语言现象,也是一种认知功能,当代的认知科学更是将其看作人类认识事物与了解世界的重要方式与途径。随着当前具身认知思潮逐渐为主流认知科学所接受与重视,其摈弃传统认知科学观身心分离的先天不足,强调身体、动作与情境在整个认知过程中整体性的核心特征也为人们熟知。而隐喻作为人的本质思维方式也因为认知的具身潮流而受到越来越多的关注。本文以隐喻及隐喻思维为切入点,结合具身心智与具身认知的相关理论与实证研究,对隐喻认知加工的具身本质进行了介绍与论证,并以行为实验与事件相关电位实验为研究方法,探索与验证了隐喻认知加工的具身性质。
本研究以隐喻在线认知加工中的事件相关电位法为主要研究工具,在对汉语隐喻材料本身的语言属性(如熟悉度、规范性、可接受性)以及相关具身行为实验(身体感知觉、身体姿势和情绪)比对的基础上,以先期问卷形式对所选择的语料进行合适性、熟悉度和具身的性质进行筛选,并以E-prime软件编写程序进行语料呈现,设计了三个实验,以期验证汉语隐喻认知加工过程中的具身性及其影响,并在一定程度上探讨了汉语隐喻认知加工的神经机制。
实验一采用尾词范式设计,呈现的语料中包含本义句、正相关句、负相关句和错句四种类型,实验前及实验过程中分别以冷水、温水、热水为自变量对被试进行预先刺激,用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中语料刺激所引发的脑电数据,用E-prime软件记录被试对所呈现语料的反应时与正确率的行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。对行为数据与脑电数据综合分析的结果显示：经历不同温度刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为热水组被试对那些能表现出友好、善意、热情等与“热”相关的语料的反应正确率更高,而冷水组的被试则对冷淡、冷漠等表现出“冷”的词汇的反应正确率更高,同时脑电地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出冷水组被试与热水组被试在语料加工过程中的不同大脑认知加工过程。相关的具身刺激对被试的行为与选择确实带来了一定的影响,并直接体现在外显的反应中。对被试行为数据的正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析,以及对于电极点平均波幅的重复测量方差分析显示,不同被试组间差异不显著,被试的性别差异也不会影响被试的行为反应结果。在针对脑电数据的统计分析中,脑地形图和波形图的分析显示有差异,SPSS统计显示P600成分的组间差异显著。对此我们认为：实验结果在一定程度上验证了不同温度会影响被试隐喻认知加工过程的假设,温度会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生一定的影响。
实验二采用了尾词范式的正相关句、负相关句、无关句和错句作为被试的呈现语料,以不同的坐姿作为对不同组别被试的具身刺激方式。用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中对语料所产生的脑电反应,用E-prime软件记录行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。比起实验一,实验二在离线分析过程中去除了较多的不良被试数据,究其原因我们认为这是由于一直让被试保持着弯腰和挺直的身体姿势会导致被试随着实验的推进而愈加疲劳,并自然而然的产生一些无关的干扰电位。综合所获得的行为与脑电数据,我们认为：经历不同坐姿刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为挺直组的被试对那些能表现出自信、成功、成就、自豪等与“我能”内隐相关的语料的反应正确率更高,而弯腰组的被试则对那些表现出失败、无力、沮丧、落后等内隐的表现出“我不行”的词汇反应正确率更高,同时脑电的地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出挺直组被试与弯腰组被试在理解语料过程中的不同大脑认知加工过程。虽然行为数据中被试正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析显示不同被试组间差异并不显著,但对所选取的四种波形成分N200、N400、P300、P600在FCZ,F3,F4,P3,P4,FP1,FP2,CZ八个电极点上的比较则出现了显著性差异或边缘显著差异。结果支持了实验的假设,证明了不同身体姿势的刺激会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生相应的影响。
实验三采用与实验二相同的实验方式,以尾词范式的正相关句、负相关句、无关句和错句作为被试的呈现语料,并以不同的情绪刺激作为对不同被试组别的具身刺激方式。用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中对呈现语料所产生的脑电反应,E-prime软件记录行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。综合行为与脑电的数据,我们认为：经历不同情绪刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为积极情绪组被试对那些能内隐地表现出被接受、被善待、被悦纳等相关句子的判断正确率更高,而消极情绪组的被试表现则与实验一和实验二相反——对那些表示被拒绝、被憎恨、被冷待等句子判断正确率更低了。脑电的地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出积极情绪组被试与消极情绪组被试在语料加工过程中确实有着不同的大脑认知加工过程。对被试行为数据的正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析,以及对于电极点平均波幅的重复测量方差分析显示,不同被试组的间差异不显著。在对N200、N400、P300、P600四种成分的平均波形输出中,N400成分存在组间差异。因此我们认为相关的具身刺激对被试的行为与选择确实带来了一定的影响。实验结果在一定程度上验证了实验的假设,不同情绪刺激确实会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生一定的影响。
综合实验一、二和三的结论,本研究认为,1.具身效应对于中文隐喻认知加工具有促进或延缓作用,并且这种作用体现在被试的外显行为选择与脑电数据比较上；2.N400、P300等成分是隐喻材料理解加工敏感性的指标,其波幅、激活区域等指标是句子加工难度本身的反映；3.左右脑区在中文隐喻认知加工过程中的地位与作用是不对称的,左右脑区存在差异,且右脑应该是负责隐喻意义整合的区域。
Metaphor is not only a linguistic phenomenon, but also a cognitive function. Moreover, contemporary cognitive science takes it as an important way for human to understand things and the world. As the mainstream of cognition science accepted and attached the importance on the embodied cognition thought, more people know its core feature. Embodied cognition rejected the inherent weaknesses of the traditional cognitive science which thought the body and mind are separated, and also emphasize that the body, actions and situations are integral in the whole cognitive process. Meanwhile, because of the embodied cognition trend, metaphor as the essential way for human thinking has been getting more attention. In this paper, we use metaphor and metaphorical thinking as the starting point, combining with the theory and experiment research of embodied mind and embodied cognition to introduce and prove the embodied essential of metaphorical cognition. Besides, we explored and verified it by using ERP research methods.
In this paper, we use ERP as the research method, which use to study online metaphorical cognitive process. We compared the attributes of Chinese metaphor materials (e.g. familiarity, normalization, and acceptability) with relevant embodied behavioral experiments (involving the sensation and perception, postures, emotions) Basing on this, we design three experiments to verify the embodiment effect and its influences on the Chinese metaphors cognitive process. To some extent, we also explore the neural mechanisms of the Chinese metaphors cognitive processing.
In the first experiment, we adopted the tail design paradigm, and including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences. The cold water, warm water and hot water were the independent variables in this experiment. Subjects accepted the stimulation before the experiments and during the experiment. We used ERP to record the subjects'EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different temperature stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. This difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the hot water group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means friendship、kindness and enthusiasm, while the cold water group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means cold and indifference. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "hot group" and "cold group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. Related stimulation to the behavior and selection of subjects does bring certain influence, and directly reflected in the outside of the reaction. But at the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects'behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects, and subjects'gender differences didn't affect the behavior of the subjects reaction results. In EEGs data statistical analysis, brain topographic map and oscillogram analysis shows that there are differences, SPSS statistics show significant difference between the P600of the group. For this result, we consider that the experiment results alidate the assumption in a certain degree, but only reflected in the behavioral data and cursory ERP statistical result, there was no significant difference in the subsequent statistical analysis. Temperature is thought to produce a certain impact on the processing of metaphor cognitive, but not enough to reach a significant level of difference.
In the second experiment, we still adopted the tail design paradigm, which including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences, and also used the different postures as the embodied stimulation to different subject groups. We used ERP to record the subjects'EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. Comparing with the first experiment, the second one deleted more bad subjects'dates. During the experiment, the subjects were asked to maintain bend over or upright postures and this will naturally makes them tired and promotes more failure because of extraneous interference potentials. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different body gestures stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. The difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the straight group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means self-confidence， success and proudness, while the stoop group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means failure, weakness, depression, and backward. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "stoop group" and "straight group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. At the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects' behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects. By selecting the eight points of the four waveform components, FCZ, F3, F4, P3, P4, FP1, FP2, and CZ are picked from N200, N400, P300and P600waves, and appear significant difference marginally significant difference. The results support the assumption of the experiment, and metaphor cognitive processing by posture stimulation do have impact to metaphor understanding.
In the last experiment, we still adopted the tail design paradigm, and including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences. The negative mood and the positive mood were the independent variables in this experiment. Subjects accepted the stimulation before the experiments and during the experiment. We used ERP to record the subjects' EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different mood stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. This difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the positive mood group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means acceptation and pleasing, while the negative mood group have lower correct rate when they come to the materials means hate or disfavor. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "positive mood group" and "negative mood group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. But at the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects' behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects. On N200, N400, P300, component composition average waveform output, there are differences in the group of N400composition. For this result, we consider that the experiment results alidate the assumption in a certain degree, but only reflected in the behavioral data and cursory ERP statistical result, there was no significant difference in the subsequent statistical analysis. The results support the assumption of the experiment, and metaphor cognitive processing by mood stimulation do have impact to metaphor understanding.
Synthesizing all three experiments, firstly we suggests that the embodied effects promote or retard the effects of Chinese metaphor cognitive processing, which is more reflects the outstanding performance of the overt behavior and the comparison of EEGs data; Secondly, the N400and P300components are the sensitive indicators of metaphorical material, which indicates the sentence processing difficulty by volatility activation region; Finally, the left and right brain regions have different positions and effects in Chinese metaphor cognitive processes, and the right brain is responsible for the metaphorical integration.
本研究以隐喻在线认知加工中的事件相关电位法为主要研究工具,在对汉语隐喻材料本身的语言属性(如熟悉度、规范性、可接受性)以及相关具身行为实验(身体感知觉、身体姿势和情绪)比对的基础上,以先期问卷形式对所选择的语料进行合适性、熟悉度和具身的性质进行筛选,并以E-prime软件编写程序进行语料呈现,设计了三个实验,以期验证汉语隐喻认知加工过程中的具身性及其影响,并在一定程度上探讨了汉语隐喻认知加工的神经机制。
实验一采用尾词范式设计,呈现的语料中包含本义句、正相关句、负相关句和错句四种类型,实验前及实验过程中分别以冷水、温水、热水为自变量对被试进行预先刺激,用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中语料刺激所引发的脑电数据,用E-prime软件记录被试对所呈现语料的反应时与正确率的行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。对行为数据与脑电数据综合分析的结果显示：经历不同温度刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为热水组被试对那些能表现出友好、善意、热情等与“热”相关的语料的反应正确率更高,而冷水组的被试则对冷淡、冷漠等表现出“冷”的词汇的反应正确率更高,同时脑电地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出冷水组被试与热水组被试在语料加工过程中的不同大脑认知加工过程。相关的具身刺激对被试的行为与选择确实带来了一定的影响,并直接体现在外显的反应中。对被试行为数据的正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析,以及对于电极点平均波幅的重复测量方差分析显示,不同被试组间差异不显著,被试的性别差异也不会影响被试的行为反应结果。在针对脑电数据的统计分析中,脑地形图和波形图的分析显示有差异,SPSS统计显示P600成分的组间差异显著。对此我们认为：实验结果在一定程度上验证了不同温度会影响被试隐喻认知加工过程的假设,温度会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生一定的影响。
实验二采用了尾词范式的正相关句、负相关句、无关句和错句作为被试的呈现语料,以不同的坐姿作为对不同组别被试的具身刺激方式。用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中对语料所产生的脑电反应,用E-prime软件记录行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。比起实验一,实验二在离线分析过程中去除了较多的不良被试数据,究其原因我们认为这是由于一直让被试保持着弯腰和挺直的身体姿势会导致被试随着实验的推进而愈加疲劳,并自然而然的产生一些无关的干扰电位。综合所获得的行为与脑电数据,我们认为：经历不同坐姿刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为挺直组的被试对那些能表现出自信、成功、成就、自豪等与“我能”内隐相关的语料的反应正确率更高,而弯腰组的被试则对那些表现出失败、无力、沮丧、落后等内隐的表现出“我不行”的词汇反应正确率更高,同时脑电的地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出挺直组被试与弯腰组被试在理解语料过程中的不同大脑认知加工过程。虽然行为数据中被试正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析显示不同被试组间差异并不显著,但对所选取的四种波形成分N200、N400、P300、P600在FCZ,F3,F4,P3,P4,FP1,FP2,CZ八个电极点上的比较则出现了显著性差异或边缘显著差异。结果支持了实验的假设,证明了不同身体姿势的刺激会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生相应的影响。
实验三采用与实验二相同的实验方式,以尾词范式的正相关句、负相关句、无关句和错句作为被试的呈现语料,并以不同的情绪刺激作为对不同被试组别的具身刺激方式。用BrainProduct公司的ERP设备记录被试实验过程中对呈现语料所产生的脑电反应,E-prime软件记录行为数据,并在实验结束后进行问卷回忆。综合行为与脑电的数据,我们认为：经历不同情绪刺激的被试,在对不同类型语料的理解上确实表现出了不同的行为反应与脑电差异。这种不同在行为反应上表现为积极情绪组被试对那些能内隐地表现出被接受、被善待、被悦纳等相关句子的判断正确率更高,而消极情绪组的被试表现则与实验一和实验二相反——对那些表示被拒绝、被憎恨、被冷待等句子判断正确率更低了。脑电的地形图与波形图也能直观的显示出积极情绪组被试与消极情绪组被试在语料加工过程中确实有着不同的大脑认知加工过程。对被试行为数据的正确率与反应时的重复测量方差分析,以及对于电极点平均波幅的重复测量方差分析显示,不同被试组的间差异不显著。在对N200、N400、P300、P600四种成分的平均波形输出中,N400成分存在组间差异。因此我们认为相关的具身刺激对被试的行为与选择确实带来了一定的影响。实验结果在一定程度上验证了实验的假设,不同情绪刺激确实会对被试的隐喻认知加工产生一定的影响。
综合实验一、二和三的结论,本研究认为,1.具身效应对于中文隐喻认知加工具有促进或延缓作用,并且这种作用体现在被试的外显行为选择与脑电数据比较上；2.N400、P300等成分是隐喻材料理解加工敏感性的指标,其波幅、激活区域等指标是句子加工难度本身的反映；3.左右脑区在中文隐喻认知加工过程中的地位与作用是不对称的,左右脑区存在差异,且右脑应该是负责隐喻意义整合的区域。
Metaphor is not only a linguistic phenomenon, but also a cognitive function. Moreover, contemporary cognitive science takes it as an important way for human to understand things and the world. As the mainstream of cognition science accepted and attached the importance on the embodied cognition thought, more people know its core feature. Embodied cognition rejected the inherent weaknesses of the traditional cognitive science which thought the body and mind are separated, and also emphasize that the body, actions and situations are integral in the whole cognitive process. Meanwhile, because of the embodied cognition trend, metaphor as the essential way for human thinking has been getting more attention. In this paper, we use metaphor and metaphorical thinking as the starting point, combining with the theory and experiment research of embodied mind and embodied cognition to introduce and prove the embodied essential of metaphorical cognition. Besides, we explored and verified it by using ERP research methods.
In this paper, we use ERP as the research method, which use to study online metaphorical cognitive process. We compared the attributes of Chinese metaphor materials (e.g. familiarity, normalization, and acceptability) with relevant embodied behavioral experiments (involving the sensation and perception, postures, emotions) Basing on this, we design three experiments to verify the embodiment effect and its influences on the Chinese metaphors cognitive process. To some extent, we also explore the neural mechanisms of the Chinese metaphors cognitive processing.
In the first experiment, we adopted the tail design paradigm, and including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences. The cold water, warm water and hot water were the independent variables in this experiment. Subjects accepted the stimulation before the experiments and during the experiment. We used ERP to record the subjects'EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different temperature stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. This difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the hot water group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means friendship、kindness and enthusiasm, while the cold water group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means cold and indifference. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "hot group" and "cold group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. Related stimulation to the behavior and selection of subjects does bring certain influence, and directly reflected in the outside of the reaction. But at the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects'behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects, and subjects'gender differences didn't affect the behavior of the subjects reaction results. In EEGs data statistical analysis, brain topographic map and oscillogram analysis shows that there are differences, SPSS statistics show significant difference between the P600of the group. For this result, we consider that the experiment results alidate the assumption in a certain degree, but only reflected in the behavioral data and cursory ERP statistical result, there was no significant difference in the subsequent statistical analysis. Temperature is thought to produce a certain impact on the processing of metaphor cognitive, but not enough to reach a significant level of difference.
In the second experiment, we still adopted the tail design paradigm, which including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences, and also used the different postures as the embodied stimulation to different subject groups. We used ERP to record the subjects'EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. Comparing with the first experiment, the second one deleted more bad subjects'dates. During the experiment, the subjects were asked to maintain bend over or upright postures and this will naturally makes them tired and promotes more failure because of extraneous interference potentials. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different body gestures stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. The difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the straight group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means self-confidence， success and proudness, while the stoop group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means failure, weakness, depression, and backward. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "stoop group" and "straight group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. At the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects' behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects. By selecting the eight points of the four waveform components, FCZ, F3, F4, P3, P4, FP1, FP2, and CZ are picked from N200, N400, P300and P600waves, and appear significant difference marginally significant difference. The results support the assumption of the experiment, and metaphor cognitive processing by posture stimulation do have impact to metaphor understanding.
In the last experiment, we still adopted the tail design paradigm, and including four types of materials:original meaning sentences, the positive correlation sentences, the negative correlation sentences and the wrong sentences. The negative mood and the positive mood were the independent variables in this experiment. Subjects accepted the stimulation before the experiments and during the experiment. We used ERP to record the subjects' EEGs reaction to the materials during the process, and used E-prime to record the reaction time and accuracy. After the experiment, all the subjects were asked to finish a recall test. After comprehensive analysis of the behavior and EEGs data, we conclude that after experiencing different mood stimuli, the subjects indeed exhibit different behavioral responses and EEGs in the understanding of different types of materials. This difference of the behavioral response on the performance is that the positive mood group have higher correct rate when they come to the materials means acceptation and pleasing, while the negative mood group have lower correct rate when they come to the materials means hate or disfavor. The topographic maps and wave chart of the EEGs give the similar result at the same time that the "positive mood group" and "negative mood group" do have different cognitive processes of the brain in the course of processing the materials. But at the same time, after repeated measuring analysis of variance of the subjects' behavioral data and accuracy and repeated measuring analysis of variance electrode point average volatility, the difference was not significant in different groups of subjects. On N200, N400, P300, component composition average waveform output, there are differences in the group of N400composition. For this result, we consider that the experiment results alidate the assumption in a certain degree, but only reflected in the behavioral data and cursory ERP statistical result, there was no significant difference in the subsequent statistical analysis. The results support the assumption of the experiment, and metaphor cognitive processing by mood stimulation do have impact to metaphor understanding.
Synthesizing all three experiments, firstly we suggests that the embodied effects promote or retard the effects of Chinese metaphor cognitive processing, which is more reflects the outstanding performance of the overt behavior and the comparison of EEGs data; Secondly, the N400and P300components are the sensitive indicators of metaphorical material, which indicates the sentence processing difficulty by volatility activation region; Finally, the left and right brain regions have different positions and effects in Chinese metaphor cognitive processes, and the right brain is responsible for the metaphorical integration.
引文
埃科·翁贝尔托.(2006)).符号学与语言哲学.天津：百花文艺出版社.
保罗·利科.汪堂家译.(2004).活的隐喻上海：上海译文出版社.
常欣.(2009)).认知神经语言学视野下的句子理解北京：科学出版社.
陈巍,黄家裕.(2012).具身化、隐喻理解与情绪启动.浙江社会科学8,100-104.
丁锦红等.(2010)).以知心理学北京：中国人民大学出版社.
杜晓霞.(2009)).认知神经科学还原论与心理学.湖南工业大学学报(社会科学版),14(1),97-99.
方学梅.(2009).基于情绪的公正感感研究博士学位论文.东北师范大学.
费多益.(2010).寓身以知心理学上海：上海教育出版社.
耿占春.(1993).隐喻北京：东方出版社.
龚玉苗等.(2009)).隐喻理解的ERPs研究述评.心理学探新29(2),38-42.
官群.(2007).具身认知对语言理解的新诠释——心理模拟：语言理解的一种手段.心理科学30(5),1252-1256.
桂诗春.(1991).实验心理语言学纲要——语言的感知、理解与产生.长沙：湖南教育出版社.
郭贵春.(2007).隐喻、修辞与科学解释.北京：科学出版社.
胡谊,桑标.(2010).教育神经科学：探索人类认知与学习的一条整合式途径.心理科学33(3),514-520.
胡壮麟.(2004)).以知隐喻学北京：：北京大学出版社.
居银.(2010).隐喻义与字面义加工时程：差异的ERP研究.硕士学位论文.上海师范大学.
肯尼斯·博登斯著.袁军等译.(2008)).研究设计与方法.上海：上海人民出版社.
蓝纯.(2005).认知语言学与隐喻研究.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
李恒威,肖家燕.(2006).认知的具身观.自然辩证法通讯，28(1),29-34.
李恒威,盛晓明.(2006).认知的具身化.科学学研究24(2),184-190.
李荣宝,彭聃龄,郭桃梅.(2003).汉英语义通达过程时间相关电位研究.心理学报，35(3),309-316.
刘希彦等.(2004))心·理语言学北京：高等教育出版社.
刘晓力.(2005).交互隐喻与涉身哲学——认知科学新进路的哲学基础.哲学研究10,74-81.
罗跃嘉、魏景汉.(1997)).跨通路识别汉字形音的偏差相关成分研究.心理学报29(4),400-408.
罗跃嘉、魏景汉.(1998)).中西文的事件相关电位N400研究现状.心理学动态6(3),1-5.
罗跃嘉等.(2001)).汉字视听再认的ERP研究效应与记忆提取脑机制.心理学报33(6),489-494.
吕公礼.(2010)).涉身心智和语言涉身性的神经科学背景.外语学刊155,34-39.
孟维杰.(2012)).从认知心理学到认知神经科学：范式检讨与文化自觉.南京师大学报(社会科学版).3,103-109.
孟伟.(2007).Embodiment、认知科学以及传统意义理论的发展.心智与计算1(2007),114-121.
牛保义.(2008)).认知语言学经典文献选读.郑州：河南大学出版社.
桑塔耶纳·乔治.缪灵珠译.(1982)).美感北京：中国社会科学出版社.
沈秋凤,丁峻.(2009)).具身视域下情绪启动对隐喻理解影响的模型.第十二届全国心理学学术大会，山东济南.
石中英.(1999)).教育学文化性格..太原：山西教育出版社.
疏德明,刘电芝.(2009,).隐喻认知机制的ERP研究.心理科学32(1),161-163.
斯坦哈特著.黄华新等译.(2010)).隐喻的逻辑——可能世界中的类比.杭州：浙江大学出版社.
瓦雷拉等著.李恒威等译.(2010)).具身心智：认知科学和人类经验杭州：浙江大学出版社.
王德春等.(1997)).神经语言学上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王小潞.(2009)).汉语隐喻认知知与ERP神经成像.北京：高等教育出版社.
王新远.(2006)).语言理论与语言学方法论.北京：教育科学出版社.
王寅.(2007)).认知语言学上海：上海外语教育出版社.
魏景汉等.(2010)).事件相关电位原理与技术. 北京：科学出版社.
吴念阳.(2009)).隐喻的心理学研究.海：上海百家出版社.
夏征农.(1999)).辞海.上海辞书出版社.
谢之君.(2007)).隐喻认知功能探索.上海：复旦大学出版社.
许先文.(2010)).具身认知：语言认知研究的跨学科取向.广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),46(6),96-101.
亚里士多德.(1991)).诗学上海：三联书店.
叶浩生.(2010a)).具身认知：认知心理学的新取向.心理科学进展18(5),705-710.
叶浩生.(2010b).认知心理学：困境与转向.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),28(1),42-47.
叶浩生.(2011a).身心二元论的困境与具身认知研究的兴起.心理科学34(4),999-1005.
叶浩生.(2011b).西方心理学中的具身认知思潮.华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),50(4),153-160.
叶浩生.(2011c).有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考.心理学报43(5),589-598.
张尧均.(2006).隐吩的身体——梅洛-庞蒂身体现象学研究北京：中国美术学院出版社.
赵仑.(2010).ERPs实验教程(修订版).南京：东南大学出版社.
周昌乐.(2008).作为认知手段的隐喻及其涉身性分析.心智与计算，2(3),272-278.
周海波.(2011).中文隐喻加工神经机制的ERP研究博士学位论文.湖南师范大学.
Ackerman, M. et al. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science,328,1712-1715.
Adams, F. (2010). Embodied cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4),619-628.
Anaki, D., Faust, M., Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia,36,353-362.
Anderson, M. (2003). Embodied cognition:A field guide. Artificial Intelligence,149, 91-130.
Arbib, M. A. (2008). From grasp to language:Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology,102(3),4-20.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., Faust, M. (2007). Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension:Electrophysiological measures. Neuro Image,36, 222-231.
Arzouana, Y. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes:ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research,1160,69-81.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,577-660.
Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4(3),91-99.
Beer, R. D. (2008). Edited by Paco Calvo and Toni Gomila. The dynamics of brain-Body-Environment systems:A status report. In Handbook of cognitive science:An embodied approach. Elsevier Publication.
Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond:Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia,48(3),763-773.
Bottini, Corcoran, Sterzi, Paulesu, Schenone, Scarpa, Frackowiak and Frith. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language. A Positron emssion tomography activation study. Brain,117(6), 1241-1253.
Bowdle, B., Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review,1121, 193-216.
Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., et al. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain damaged patients. Neuropsychologia,28,375-383.
Burgess, C., Chiarello, C. (1996). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language. Metaphot and Symbolic Activity, 11(1),67-84.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3(9), 345-351.
Clark, A. (2008). Pressing the Flesh:A Tension in the Study of the Embodied, Embedded Mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,1(1),37-59.
Clark, H., & Lucy. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said:a study in conversationally conveyed request. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,14,56-72.
Coulson, S., Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor:an event-related potential study, Memory & Cognition,30,958-968.
Coulsona, S. (2007). Special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemi field presentation. Brain research,1146,128-145.
Daseal. (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science,11(3),259-281.
Fauconnier, G, Lakoff, G., & Langacker, R. (1996). Cognitive linguistics symposium. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Faust, Weisper. (2000). Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres.Brain and Cognition,43(3),186-191.
Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., Kutas, M. (2006). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research,1146,75-84.
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language,89(2),385-392.
Friederici, A. D. (1997). Neurophysiological aspects of language processing. Clinical Neuroscience,4,64-72.
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration:sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Meurory and Cognition,27(3), 438-453.
Friederici, D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing:a model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language,50(3),259-281.
Gagnon, L., Goulet, P., Giroux, F., Joanette, Y. (2003). Processing of metaphoric and no metaphoric alternative meaning of words after right-and left-hemispheric lesion. Brain and Language,87,217-226.
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex, Brain,119.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff. G. (2005). The brain's concepts:The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22(3-4),455-479.
Garbarini, F., & Adenzato, M. (2004). At the root of embodied cognition:Cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition,56(1),100-106.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1993). Rudzks-Osty, Brygida, (Ed.), Conceptualication and Mental Processing in Language. BERLIN:Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language:the graded salience hypothesis Cognitive Linguistics,83,183-206.
Glucksberg, S. et al. (1982). On understanding speech:can people ignore speech? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,21,85-98.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycho linguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(2),92-96.
Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in Theory and Practice:the Influence of Metaphors on Expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation,24,237-253.
Hanna, R. & Maiese, M. (2009). Embodied minds in action. New York:Oxford University Press Inc.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., Pulvermu, F. I. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron,41,301-307.
Havas, A. et al. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic bulletin & review,14 (3),436-441.
Hollnagel, E. (2001). Extended cognition and the future of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,2(3),309-315.
Homas, W., Chubert, K. (2009). The embodied self:Making a fist enhances men's power-related self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45, 828-834.
Jesper, H. (1958). The ten twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroenceph clin Neuro-physiol,10,371-375.
Jie Yang, Hua Shu. (2011). Embodied representation of tool-use action verbs and hand action verbs:evidence from a tone judgment task. Neuroscience Letters,493, 112-115
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics,13(3),245-263.
Johnson. (1996).Comprehension of metaphors and similes:A Reaction Time study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2):145-159.
Kacinik, N., Chiarello, C. (2007). Understanding metaphors:Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved, Brain and Language,100,188-207.
Kashima, Y. (2000). Culture as meaning system versus culture as signification process. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,31,50-53.
Kutas, M., Hillyard, S. (1980). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature,307,161-163.
Kutas, M., Petten, C, Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified Ⅱ: 1994-2005. In:Traxler, M. J., Gernsbacher, M.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics Second Edition. Elsevier Press, New York.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh:embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (1983). Cognitive Semantics-Some Recent Developments. Mathematical Social Sciences,4(2),183-184.
Lakoff, G. (1991). Cognitive Versus Generative Linguistics-How Commitments Influence Results. Language & Communication,11(1-2),53-62.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The role of the brain in the metaphorical mathematical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,31(6),658.
Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason:A field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System. Cognitive Science,4(2),195-208.
Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (1998). Conceptual metaphor in mathematics. Discourse and Cognition:Bridging the Gap,219-237.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Linguistic Theory and Real World. Language Learning,25(2), 309-338.
Lakoff, R. (1988). Neurotic and Psychotic Language-Behavior-Wodak, R, Vandecraen, P. Contemporary Psychology,53(12),1052-1053.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things:what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Larsen, R., Kasimatis, M., Frey, K. (1992). Cognition. Emotion,6,321.
Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, Antonio Damasio. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions:findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris,102,35-39.
Mashal, Faust and Hendler. (2005).The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings:Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuwpsychologia,43(1A),2084-2100.
Miller, G. A. (1990). The cognitive revolution:a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive,7(3),141-144.
Mouilsi, E. et al. (2007). Differences in action tendencies distinguish anger and sadness after comprehension of emotional sentences. Mcnamara, S., Trafton, G. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Neisser, U. (2003). Adventures in cognition:From cognitive psychology to the rising curve. IN Psychologists defying the Crowd:Stories for those who battled the establishment and won. Edited by Robert, J., Sternberg. American Psychological Association.
Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Study of Mathematics,70,159-174.
Newell, A., Simon, A. (1990). Computer science as empirical enquiry:Symbols and search, in Boden, A. (Eds.), The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niedenthal, M. et al. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and social psychology review,9,184-211.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language,31,785-806.
Pulvermueller, F. (2001).Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5,517-524.
Pynte, M. et al. (1996). The time-course of metaphor comprehension:An event-related potential study. Brain and language,55,293-316.
Ramsy, W. (2007). Representation reconsidered. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Rueschemeyer, S. A., Brass, M., Friederici, A. D. (2007). Comprehending prehending: neural correlates of processing verbs with motor stems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,19,855-865.
Rueschemeyer, S. A., Pfeiffer, C., Bekkering, H. (2010). Body schematics:on the role of the body schema in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Neuropsychologia,48,774-781.
Schmidt, G., Casey, J., Seger, C. (2007). Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the Lateralization Semantic Processes. Brain and Language,100, 127-141.
Schmidt-Hieber, C., Jonas, P., Bischofberger, J. (2004). Enhanced synaptic plasticity in newly generated granule cell of the adult hippocampus. Nature,429.
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean consistence:Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgements. Psychological Science,19,1219-1222.
Semin, G. (2009). The thermometer of social relations:mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science,20,1214-1220.
Shapiro, L. (2007). The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass,2(2),338-346.
Shtyrov, Y., Hauk, O., Pulvermueller, F. (2004). Distributed neuronal networks for encoding category-specific semantic information:the mismatch negativity to action words. European Journal of Neuroscience,19,1083-1092.
Sidtis. (2006).Where in the Brain Is Nonliteral Language? Metaphor and symbol,
27(4),213-244.
Solms, M. (2004). Is the brain more real than the mind? In A.Casement (Ed.), Who owns psychoanalysis? London:Karnac.
Sotillo, M., Carretie, L., Hinojosa, J., Tapia, A., Mercado, M. (2005). Neural activity associated with metaphor comprehension:spatial analysis. Neuroscience Letters, 373,5-9.
Speer, N. K., Zacks, J. M., Reynolds, J. R., & Swallow, R. M. (2005). Neural activity during reading reflects changes in the situation described by the text. Paper presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Stein, L. A. (1990). Challenging the computational metaphor, implications for how we think. Cybernetics and System,30(6),1-35.
Steinhauer, K., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In Stemmer, B. & Whitaker, H. A. (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language. Oxford:Elsevier.
Stepper, S., Strack, F. (1993). Perprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2,768-777
Stin, A. (1990). Challenging the Computational Metaphor:Implications for how we think. Cybernetics and System,30,1-35.
Strack, F. et al. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating condition of facial expressions:a nonobstrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54,768-777.
Stringaris, Medford, Giora, Giampietro, Brammer and David. (2006).How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments:The role of the right frontal cortex. Neuroimage,33(2),784-793.
Tartter, C. et al. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: evidence from N400. Brain and Language,80,488-509.
Tartter, V., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., Vala-Stewart, R. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily:evidence from N400. Brain and Language,80,488-509.
Tettamanti, M, Buccino, G, Saccuman, M. C. et al. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,17,273-281.
Tracy & Robins. (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science,16,147-150.
Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition:Spatial Perspective-taking. Cognition,110,124-129.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The Embodied Mind:Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Waskul, D. & Vannini, P. (2006). Body/embodiment:symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body. Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Watkins, k., Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception:the role of broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscienfe,16(6), 978-987.
Weiskopf, D. A. (2010). Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,41(3),294-304.
Wells, L., Petty, E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: compatibility and incompatibility of Responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,1,219-230.
Wessel, O.van Dam, et al. (2010). How specifically are action verbs represented in the neural motor system:An fMRI study. Neurolmage,53,1318-1325.
Whitney, C., Huber, W., Klann, J. et al. (2009).Neural correlates of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. Neurolmage,47,360-366.
Williams, E., Bargh, A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science,322,606-607.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 4,625-636.
Winter, P. (1996). Ecological Psychology:Healing the Split between Planet and Self. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
Yanchar, S. (2005). A contextualist alternative to cognitive psychology, in Slife, D., Reber, S., and Richardon, C. (Eds.), Critical Thinking about Psychology:Hidden
Assumptions and Plausible Alternatives. American Psychological Association.
保罗·利科.汪堂家译.(2004).活的隐喻上海：上海译文出版社.
常欣.(2009)).认知神经语言学视野下的句子理解北京：科学出版社.
陈巍,黄家裕.(2012).具身化、隐喻理解与情绪启动.浙江社会科学8,100-104.
丁锦红等.(2010)).以知心理学北京：中国人民大学出版社.
杜晓霞.(2009)).认知神经科学还原论与心理学.湖南工业大学学报(社会科学版),14(1),97-99.
方学梅.(2009).基于情绪的公正感感研究博士学位论文.东北师范大学.
费多益.(2010).寓身以知心理学上海：上海教育出版社.
耿占春.(1993).隐喻北京：东方出版社.
龚玉苗等.(2009)).隐喻理解的ERPs研究述评.心理学探新29(2),38-42.
官群.(2007).具身认知对语言理解的新诠释——心理模拟：语言理解的一种手段.心理科学30(5),1252-1256.
桂诗春.(1991).实验心理语言学纲要——语言的感知、理解与产生.长沙：湖南教育出版社.
郭贵春.(2007).隐喻、修辞与科学解释.北京：科学出版社.
胡谊,桑标.(2010).教育神经科学：探索人类认知与学习的一条整合式途径.心理科学33(3),514-520.
胡壮麟.(2004)).以知隐喻学北京：：北京大学出版社.
居银.(2010).隐喻义与字面义加工时程：差异的ERP研究.硕士学位论文.上海师范大学.
肯尼斯·博登斯著.袁军等译.(2008)).研究设计与方法.上海：上海人民出版社.
蓝纯.(2005).认知语言学与隐喻研究.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
李恒威,肖家燕.(2006).认知的具身观.自然辩证法通讯，28(1),29-34.
李恒威,盛晓明.(2006).认知的具身化.科学学研究24(2),184-190.
李荣宝,彭聃龄,郭桃梅.(2003).汉英语义通达过程时间相关电位研究.心理学报，35(3),309-316.
刘希彦等.(2004))心·理语言学北京：高等教育出版社.
刘晓力.(2005).交互隐喻与涉身哲学——认知科学新进路的哲学基础.哲学研究10,74-81.
罗跃嘉、魏景汉.(1997)).跨通路识别汉字形音的偏差相关成分研究.心理学报29(4),400-408.
罗跃嘉、魏景汉.(1998)).中西文的事件相关电位N400研究现状.心理学动态6(3),1-5.
罗跃嘉等.(2001)).汉字视听再认的ERP研究效应与记忆提取脑机制.心理学报33(6),489-494.
吕公礼.(2010)).涉身心智和语言涉身性的神经科学背景.外语学刊155,34-39.
孟维杰.(2012)).从认知心理学到认知神经科学：范式检讨与文化自觉.南京师大学报(社会科学版).3,103-109.
孟伟.(2007).Embodiment、认知科学以及传统意义理论的发展.心智与计算1(2007),114-121.
牛保义.(2008)).认知语言学经典文献选读.郑州：河南大学出版社.
桑塔耶纳·乔治.缪灵珠译.(1982)).美感北京：中国社会科学出版社.
沈秋凤,丁峻.(2009)).具身视域下情绪启动对隐喻理解影响的模型.第十二届全国心理学学术大会，山东济南.
石中英.(1999)).教育学文化性格..太原：山西教育出版社.
疏德明,刘电芝.(2009,).隐喻认知机制的ERP研究.心理科学32(1),161-163.
斯坦哈特著.黄华新等译.(2010)).隐喻的逻辑——可能世界中的类比.杭州：浙江大学出版社.
瓦雷拉等著.李恒威等译.(2010)).具身心智：认知科学和人类经验杭州：浙江大学出版社.
王德春等.(1997)).神经语言学上海：上海外语教育出版社.
王小潞.(2009)).汉语隐喻认知知与ERP神经成像.北京：高等教育出版社.
王新远.(2006)).语言理论与语言学方法论.北京：教育科学出版社.
王寅.(2007)).认知语言学上海：上海外语教育出版社.
魏景汉等.(2010)).事件相关电位原理与技术. 北京：科学出版社.
吴念阳.(2009)).隐喻的心理学研究.海：上海百家出版社.
夏征农.(1999)).辞海.上海辞书出版社.
谢之君.(2007)).隐喻认知功能探索.上海：复旦大学出版社.
许先文.(2010)).具身认知：语言认知研究的跨学科取向.广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),46(6),96-101.
亚里士多德.(1991)).诗学上海：三联书店.
叶浩生.(2010a)).具身认知：认知心理学的新取向.心理科学进展18(5),705-710.
叶浩生.(2010b).认知心理学：困境与转向.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),28(1),42-47.
叶浩生.(2011a).身心二元论的困境与具身认知研究的兴起.心理科学34(4),999-1005.
叶浩生.(2011b).西方心理学中的具身认知思潮.华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),50(4),153-160.
叶浩生.(2011c).有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考.心理学报43(5),589-598.
张尧均.(2006).隐吩的身体——梅洛-庞蒂身体现象学研究北京：中国美术学院出版社.
赵仑.(2010).ERPs实验教程(修订版).南京：东南大学出版社.
周昌乐.(2008).作为认知手段的隐喻及其涉身性分析.心智与计算，2(3),272-278.
周海波.(2011).中文隐喻加工神经机制的ERP研究博士学位论文.湖南师范大学.
Ackerman, M. et al. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science,328,1712-1715.
Adams, F. (2010). Embodied cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4),619-628.
Anaki, D., Faust, M., Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia,36,353-362.
Anderson, M. (2003). Embodied cognition:A field guide. Artificial Intelligence,149, 91-130.
Arbib, M. A. (2008). From grasp to language:Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology,102(3),4-20.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., Faust, M. (2007). Dynamics of hemispheric activity during metaphor comprehension:Electrophysiological measures. Neuro Image,36, 222-231.
Arzouana, Y. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes:ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain research,1160,69-81.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,577-660.
Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4(3),91-99.
Beer, R. D. (2008). Edited by Paco Calvo and Toni Gomila. The dynamics of brain-Body-Environment systems:A status report. In Handbook of cognitive science:An embodied approach. Elsevier Publication.
Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond:Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia,48(3),763-773.
Bottini, Corcoran, Sterzi, Paulesu, Schenone, Scarpa, Frackowiak and Frith. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language. A Positron emssion tomography activation study. Brain,117(6), 1241-1253.
Bowdle, B., Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review,1121, 193-216.
Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., et al. (1990). Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain damaged patients. Neuropsychologia,28,375-383.
Burgess, C., Chiarello, C. (1996). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language. Metaphot and Symbolic Activity, 11(1),67-84.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3(9), 345-351.
Clark, A. (2008). Pressing the Flesh:A Tension in the Study of the Embodied, Embedded Mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,1(1),37-59.
Clark, H., & Lucy. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said:a study in conversationally conveyed request. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,14,56-72.
Coulson, S., Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor:an event-related potential study, Memory & Cognition,30,958-968.
Coulsona, S. (2007). Special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemi field presentation. Brain research,1146,128-145.
Daseal. (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science,11(3),259-281.
Fauconnier, G, Lakoff, G., & Langacker, R. (1996). Cognitive linguistics symposium. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Faust, Weisper. (2000). Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres.Brain and Cognition,43(3),186-191.
Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., Kutas, M. (2006). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research,1146,75-84.
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language,89(2),385-392.
Friederici, A. D. (1997). Neurophysiological aspects of language processing. Clinical Neuroscience,4,64-72.
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration:sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Meurory and Cognition,27(3), 438-453.
Friederici, D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing:a model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language,50(3),259-281.
Gagnon, L., Goulet, P., Giroux, F., Joanette, Y. (2003). Processing of metaphoric and no metaphoric alternative meaning of words after right-and left-hemispheric lesion. Brain and Language,87,217-226.
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex, Brain,119.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff. G. (2005). The brain's concepts:The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22(3-4),455-479.
Garbarini, F., & Adenzato, M. (2004). At the root of embodied cognition:Cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition,56(1),100-106.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1993). Rudzks-Osty, Brygida, (Ed.), Conceptualication and Mental Processing in Language. BERLIN:Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language:the graded salience hypothesis Cognitive Linguistics,83,183-206.
Glucksberg, S. et al. (1982). On understanding speech:can people ignore speech? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,21,85-98.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycho linguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(2),92-96.
Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in Theory and Practice:the Influence of Metaphors on Expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation,24,237-253.
Hanna, R. & Maiese, M. (2009). Embodied minds in action. New York:Oxford University Press Inc.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., Pulvermu, F. I. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron,41,301-307.
Havas, A. et al. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic bulletin & review,14 (3),436-441.
Hollnagel, E. (2001). Extended cognition and the future of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,2(3),309-315.
Homas, W., Chubert, K. (2009). The embodied self:Making a fist enhances men's power-related self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45, 828-834.
Jesper, H. (1958). The ten twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroenceph clin Neuro-physiol,10,371-375.
Jie Yang, Hua Shu. (2011). Embodied representation of tool-use action verbs and hand action verbs:evidence from a tone judgment task. Neuroscience Letters,493, 112-115
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics,13(3),245-263.
Johnson. (1996).Comprehension of metaphors and similes:A Reaction Time study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2):145-159.
Kacinik, N., Chiarello, C. (2007). Understanding metaphors:Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved, Brain and Language,100,188-207.
Kashima, Y. (2000). Culture as meaning system versus culture as signification process. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,31,50-53.
Kutas, M., Hillyard, S. (1980). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature,307,161-163.
Kutas, M., Petten, C, Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified Ⅱ: 1994-2005. In:Traxler, M. J., Gernsbacher, M.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics Second Edition. Elsevier Press, New York.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh:embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (1983). Cognitive Semantics-Some Recent Developments. Mathematical Social Sciences,4(2),183-184.
Lakoff, G. (1991). Cognitive Versus Generative Linguistics-How Commitments Influence Results. Language & Communication,11(1-2),53-62.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The role of the brain in the metaphorical mathematical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,31(6),658.
Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason:A field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System. Cognitive Science,4(2),195-208.
Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (1998). Conceptual metaphor in mathematics. Discourse and Cognition:Bridging the Gap,219-237.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Linguistic Theory and Real World. Language Learning,25(2), 309-338.
Lakoff, R. (1988). Neurotic and Psychotic Language-Behavior-Wodak, R, Vandecraen, P. Contemporary Psychology,53(12),1052-1053.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things:what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Larsen, R., Kasimatis, M., Frey, K. (1992). Cognition. Emotion,6,321.
Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, Antonio Damasio. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions:findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris,102,35-39.
Mashal, Faust and Hendler. (2005).The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings:Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuwpsychologia,43(1A),2084-2100.
Miller, G. A. (1990). The cognitive revolution:a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive,7(3),141-144.
Mouilsi, E. et al. (2007). Differences in action tendencies distinguish anger and sadness after comprehension of emotional sentences. Mcnamara, S., Trafton, G. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Neisser, U. (2003). Adventures in cognition:From cognitive psychology to the rising curve. IN Psychologists defying the Crowd:Stories for those who battled the establishment and won. Edited by Robert, J., Sternberg. American Psychological Association.
Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Study of Mathematics,70,159-174.
Newell, A., Simon, A. (1990). Computer science as empirical enquiry:Symbols and search, in Boden, A. (Eds.), The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niedenthal, M. et al. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and social psychology review,9,184-211.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language,31,785-806.
Pulvermueller, F. (2001).Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5,517-524.
Pynte, M. et al. (1996). The time-course of metaphor comprehension:An event-related potential study. Brain and language,55,293-316.
Ramsy, W. (2007). Representation reconsidered. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Rueschemeyer, S. A., Brass, M., Friederici, A. D. (2007). Comprehending prehending: neural correlates of processing verbs with motor stems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,19,855-865.
Rueschemeyer, S. A., Pfeiffer, C., Bekkering, H. (2010). Body schematics:on the role of the body schema in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Neuropsychologia,48,774-781.
Schmidt, G., Casey, J., Seger, C. (2007). Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the Lateralization Semantic Processes. Brain and Language,100, 127-141.
Schmidt-Hieber, C., Jonas, P., Bischofberger, J. (2004). Enhanced synaptic plasticity in newly generated granule cell of the adult hippocampus. Nature,429.
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean consistence:Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgements. Psychological Science,19,1219-1222.
Semin, G. (2009). The thermometer of social relations:mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science,20,1214-1220.
Shapiro, L. (2007). The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass,2(2),338-346.
Shtyrov, Y., Hauk, O., Pulvermueller, F. (2004). Distributed neuronal networks for encoding category-specific semantic information:the mismatch negativity to action words. European Journal of Neuroscience,19,1083-1092.
Sidtis. (2006).Where in the Brain Is Nonliteral Language? Metaphor and symbol,
27(4),213-244.
Solms, M. (2004). Is the brain more real than the mind? In A.Casement (Ed.), Who owns psychoanalysis? London:Karnac.
Sotillo, M., Carretie, L., Hinojosa, J., Tapia, A., Mercado, M. (2005). Neural activity associated with metaphor comprehension:spatial analysis. Neuroscience Letters, 373,5-9.
Speer, N. K., Zacks, J. M., Reynolds, J. R., & Swallow, R. M. (2005). Neural activity during reading reflects changes in the situation described by the text. Paper presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Stein, L. A. (1990). Challenging the computational metaphor, implications for how we think. Cybernetics and System,30(6),1-35.
Steinhauer, K., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In Stemmer, B. & Whitaker, H. A. (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language. Oxford:Elsevier.
Stepper, S., Strack, F. (1993). Perprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2,768-777
Stin, A. (1990). Challenging the Computational Metaphor:Implications for how we think. Cybernetics and System,30,1-35.
Strack, F. et al. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating condition of facial expressions:a nonobstrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54,768-777.
Stringaris, Medford, Giora, Giampietro, Brammer and David. (2006).How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments:The role of the right frontal cortex. Neuroimage,33(2),784-793.
Tartter, C. et al. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: evidence from N400. Brain and Language,80,488-509.
Tartter, V., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S., Vala-Stewart, R. (2002). Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily:evidence from N400. Brain and Language,80,488-509.
Tettamanti, M, Buccino, G, Saccuman, M. C. et al. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,17,273-281.
Tracy & Robins. (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science,16,147-150.
Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition:Spatial Perspective-taking. Cognition,110,124-129.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The Embodied Mind:Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Waskul, D. & Vannini, P. (2006). Body/embodiment:symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body. Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Watkins, k., Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception:the role of broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscienfe,16(6), 978-987.
Weiskopf, D. A. (2010). Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,41(3),294-304.
Wells, L., Petty, E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: compatibility and incompatibility of Responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,1,219-230.
Wessel, O.van Dam, et al. (2010). How specifically are action verbs represented in the neural motor system:An fMRI study. Neurolmage,53,1318-1325.
Whitney, C., Huber, W., Klann, J. et al. (2009).Neural correlates of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. Neurolmage,47,360-366.
Williams, E., Bargh, A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science,322,606-607.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 4,625-636.
Winter, P. (1996). Ecological Psychology:Healing the Split between Planet and Self. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
Yanchar, S. (2005). A contextualist alternative to cognitive psychology, in Slife, D., Reber, S., and Richardon, C. (Eds.), Critical Thinking about Psychology:Hidden
Assumptions and Plausible Alternatives. American Psychological Association.