英语介词through多义的认知语义研究
|
摘要
语言是一个不断演变的动态有机系统,一个词汇形式在长期发展过程中会从单个意义逐渐延伸出多个意义,形成词汇多义现象。多义是自然语言的基本特征,正如Lyons(1995)所说的,几乎可以肯定现在没有,以往也未曾有过任何一种自然语言,只存在一词一义。词汇多义使得语言系统中词汇的数量大幅度减少,减轻了人们心理词库的负担,是语言经济性原则和认知经济性原则的客观要求和必然结果。
对词汇多义的探讨早在古希腊亚里士多德时代就开始成为逻辑学、哲学、心理学、语言学等诸多领域的重要课题。二十世纪八十年代,认知语言学的兴起打破了传统语言学理论对意义的诠释,以革命性的方式赋予了意义全新的定义和内涵。意义不再是抽象的离散元素的集合,而是和人类对世界的体验、感知、概念化,范畴化等认知现象紧密联系在一起。认知语言学关照下的多义研究也和传统多义研究形成了鲜明的差异。认知语言学对包括介词在内的多义词进行了广泛的研究,他们注重意义间的联系,建构了以原型范畴理论为基础的辐射性多义网络模型,并用概念隐喻和概念转喻等理论解释意义的延伸机制,从而揭示了多义现象演变的基本规则,打破了传统语义学倾向于形式化的描述。但目前认知多义研究几乎千篇一律地建立在原型范畴理论之上,视角单一,阐释不见新意。笔者认为当前多义研究的最大缺陷在于忽视了语义结构的多层次性,对不同层面的意义不加区分,使得多义范畴的各个成员在抽象性或概括性上体现出巨大的差异。本文在认知语言学框架下从意象图式的角度对英语介词through的多义范畴结构进行了创新性研究,试图拓宽多义研究的视角,为多义研究范式注入新的活力。
本文一反以原型建构语义范畴的传统,转而以意象图式作为建构意义范畴的基本关系,描绘出包括抽象图式、含义图式、语境义图式在内的三层语义范畴结构。意象图式是抽象性的概念结构,根据细节具化程度的不同在使用中可以有不同的显示。根据抽象性的差别,图式可以划分出不同的层次。同一个层次的图式间形成延伸关系,上层图式和下层图式之间形成具化关系。每个图式和它下级的例示构成多义范畴的一个子范畴。通过对语料的分析,本文发现through在抽象图式层面共有四个成员,分别为THROUGH 1、THROUGH 2、THROUGH 3、THROUGH 4。其中THROUGH 1出现得最早,固化程度也最高,是抽象图式层面的原型成员。THROUGH 1的部分图式结构被凸显后通过转喻运作延伸出其它三个抽象图式。上述四个抽象图式通过细化各自概念结构中认知域的信息具化出下层的含义图式。含义图式通常最先在空间域中实现,通过隐喻映射的方式扩展到其它认知域,形成以空间含义图式为原型的子范畴。含义图式通过凸显图式中各个要素性质和特征的转喻运作形成下一级的语境义图式。抽象图式是超越语境的、具有最大概括性的图式;语境义图式表征了认知场景中的具体细节,对语境有着最大的依赖性,是言语交际行为中浮现出来的图式;含义图式则是介于两者之间的、集抽象性与具象性为一体的图式。三个层面的图式通过隐喻、转喻等认知机制形成的具化或延伸关系紧密联系在一起,形成了一个复杂的多层意义范畴结构。
本文的语料主要来源于美国当代英语语料库(COCA),主要采用了以下的研究方法:(1)以共时研究为主。虽然多义词的形成是词汇长期发展的结果,但可以从共时的角度对某一时期相对静止的词义状态进行探究,揭示该时间段内词义的存在状态和发展规律。(2)描写和解释相结合。本文在详细描写的角度上进行理论的分析和综合,既展示语言事实,又体现了理论的概括性。(3)以定性分析为主、定量分析为辅,在大量真实的自然语料基础上考察through包含的复杂语义结构。(4)从意象图式的组成要素和复杂原素两方面对意义的结构进行描写。
本文的创新性主要体现在对多义范畴内部结构的再认识上。传统认知多义研究利用原型成员建构多义范畴,语义结构呈现出边缘模糊的放射性链状结构。范畴成员的地位并不平等,而是根据其典型程度的差异排列。判断某个成员在语义范畴中的地位取决于家族相似性。家族相似性在不同成员身上会有不同的体现,但几乎没有一个要素是所有义项共有的。在多义范畴中,原型拥有最多的共有要素,是范畴的核心成员,非原型成员拥有较少的共有要素,它们通过家族相似性与原型成员发生联系,形成以原型为中心的辐射性多义网络。本文跳出目前广泛流行的多义研究范式,把多义范畴的构建和意象图式紧密联系在一起,在意义潜式中描绘出三个层次并行共现的多义模型。意象图式是在人们反复体验的过程中重复出现的概念结构,是意义的组织模式,在具体使用中可以激活不同的部分从而形成多个意义。在同一个层面上的图式抽象性和概括性基本一致,可以具化出下层例示,图式的例示本身可以作为低层图式具化出再下一级的例示。上层图式是所有下层例示共性的体现,二者形成语义范畴中的子范畴。这种层级多义模型突破了当前流行的辐射性网络结构模型,拓宽了多义研究领域的视野和空间。虽然本文的研究对象是through,但目的却是建立一个适用于所有多义词的解释模型,为类似的研究提供借鉴。Tyler和Evans (2003: 2)曾说过:“研究空间词的意义将会为理解语言、心理表征和人类经验提供基本的认识”。介词是最主要的一种空间词,虽然本文在研究深度上远不能与前辈专家比肩,但依然希望能够帮助读者加深对词汇多义的理解,并进一步感悟客观世界、人类语言以及认知行为的诸多奥妙。
根据以上研究成果,本文提出了该研究对词汇语义学尤其是多义研究、词汇教学、词典编纂等方面的启示。通过对英语介词through多义范畴结构的探讨,本文希望能够促进词汇多义理论的发展,通过突出范畴的层次性加深对范畴理论的理解,帮助词典编纂者更好地设置和解释义项,以及为英语学习者提供更为有效的词汇学习方法。当然由于认知语言学理论本身的主观性以及笔者研究能力所限,本文依然存在不少不足指出,对词汇多义的探讨有待更多优秀研究成果的出现。
Language is a dynamically evolving system. A word in its long development will gradually extend from a single meaning to a number of meanings, resulting in what is generally referred to as lexical polysemy. Polysemy is characteristic of all natural languages. As Lyons (1995) put it, there is, and there has been, no natural language where a word has only one meaning. Lexical polysemy is the result of the principle of linguistic economy and cognitive economy, for it has substantially reduced the size of vocabulary and relieves the burden of mental lexicon.
Inquiries into polysemy began as early as the Aristotelian times when it started to become a center of attention in the field of logics, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, etc. In the 1980’s, the rise of Cognitive Linguistics (CG) broke the traditional linguistic interpretations of meaning and proposed a completely new definition and implication. Meaning is no longer understood as a combination of discrete elements, but as closely related to cognitive phenomena, such as human experience, perception, conceptualization and categorization. Cognitive studies of polysemy also demonstrate striking differences from traditional ones. CG has carried out extensive studies of polysemous words that include prepositions. They emphasize associations between meanings, build up a radial network model of polysemy, and explain meaning extension in terms of conceptual metaphor and metonymy. Such work has uncovered the basic rules of polysemy which deviates from the formal trend of traditional semantics. But most of the researches in the cognitive field are based on the theory of prototype and categorization, revealing a unitary perspective with little novelty. The writer believes that such researches overlook the hierarchical nature of semantic structure and makes no distinction between different levels of meanings, so that members of the semantic category of a polysemous word exhibit enormous difference in abstractness or generality. This dissertation thus uses image schema to carry on an innovative research into the polysemy of the English preposition through under the CG framework, aiming at expanding relevant researches and injecting into them new vitality.
Contrary to prototype-based categorization, this dissertation uses image schema as a basic categorizing relationship and describes a three-layer semantic category including abstract schema, sense schema and pragmatic schema. Image schema, as an abstract conceptual structure, can manifest different fitness of detail description and develop its instantiations accordingly. It therefore can be separated into several levels according to degree of abstractness. Schemas on the same level form a relationship of extension, while between different levels, it is one of elaboration. An image schema, as well as its instantiations, stands as a sub-category of the whole semantic category. Data analysis shows that four members constitute the level of abstract schema, namely, THROUGH 1, THROUGH 2, THROUGH 3 and THROUGH 4. THROUGH 1 is the first schema that ever emerged, exhibiting the highest degree of entrenchment and acting as a prototype of this level. Part of its structure is profiled and metonymically extends to the three other schemas. These four schemas, by specifying cognitive domains, elaborate into the next level of sense schema. The latter usually manifests itself first in the domain of space, and then extends to other domains by means of metaphorical mapping, forming a sub-category centering on space sense schemas. Sense schemas again elaborate into the next level of pragmatic schema by metonymically profiling features of schema components. Abstract schemas are context-free, with maximum generality. Pragmatic schemas describe details of cognitive scenarios and are maximally context-dependent. Sense schemas are the middle level between them, demonstrating both abstractness and specificity. Schemas on the three levels are connected to each other by extension or elaboration through metaphor and metonymy, shaping a three-level complex semantic category.
Data of this research are selected from Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the following research methodologies are applied: (1) Relying on synchronic observations. Although polysemy is the result of diachronic development, it can be approached from a synchronic perspective in order to unfold its way of existing and evolving. (2) Combining description and interpretation. Detailed description that displays language facts is integrated with theoretical interpretation that analyzes and synthesizes relevant facts. (3) Using qualitative analysis supplemented by quantitative analysis so as to probe into the complex semantic structure of through on the basis of a large number of natural language data. (4) Describing semantic structure with both the elements of image schema and complex primitives.
Innovativeness of this research lies mainly in the reorientation of the semantic structure of polysemy. The mainstream cognitive studies of polysemy build up a radial network model with fuzzy boundaries based on prototype. Members of the same category have imbalanced status and are organized with respect to typicality. The judgment of a category member relies on family resemblance, the commonality between different members of a category, but there is hardly a common element that is shared by all of them. In such a radial network model, prototype owns the most common elements and is regarded as the core of a category; non-prototype members have less common elements and are connected to the prototype through family resemblance. This dissertation breaks away from the above-mentioned popular model and describes a three-layer semantic model by using image schema as a categorizing tool. An image schema is a recurrent conceptual structure in human experience which explains the organization of semantic structures. In language use, an image schema can be activated differently and form different meanings. Members of the same level exhibit similar schematicity or generality. They can develop more detailed instantiations which, as a lower level of schema, can develop further instantiations. A superordinate schema is the manifestation of commonality of all subordinate instantiations. They together form a sub-category of the whole semantic category. Such a model goes beyond the one of radial network, expands polysemy studies, and provides insights for relevant researches. Although only through is selected for observation, the research aims at building a theoretical framework for polysemy as a universal phenomenon. Tyler and Evans (2003: 22) once commented,“investigating the meanings associated with spatial particles will offer fundamental insights into the relation between language, mental representation and human experience.”Although in depth this research cannot compare with previous ones, the writer still hopes to deepen the readers’understanding of lexical polysemy and further unravel the intricate interaction between world, language and cognition.
Based on research findings, this dissertation promises implications for lexical semantics, polysemy in particular, vocabulary teaching and lexicography. It is expected that this research can motivate the development of lexical polysemy theories, broaden the understanding of categorization theory by focusing on its hierarchical order, help lexicographers better set and define semantic items, and offer more effective ways of vocabulary acquisition for English learners. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that due to subjectivity of CG in its own right and limitations of the researcher’s capability, this dissertation is far from perfection. More insightful findings are still to be expected.
对词汇多义的探讨早在古希腊亚里士多德时代就开始成为逻辑学、哲学、心理学、语言学等诸多领域的重要课题。二十世纪八十年代,认知语言学的兴起打破了传统语言学理论对意义的诠释,以革命性的方式赋予了意义全新的定义和内涵。意义不再是抽象的离散元素的集合,而是和人类对世界的体验、感知、概念化,范畴化等认知现象紧密联系在一起。认知语言学关照下的多义研究也和传统多义研究形成了鲜明的差异。认知语言学对包括介词在内的多义词进行了广泛的研究,他们注重意义间的联系,建构了以原型范畴理论为基础的辐射性多义网络模型,并用概念隐喻和概念转喻等理论解释意义的延伸机制,从而揭示了多义现象演变的基本规则,打破了传统语义学倾向于形式化的描述。但目前认知多义研究几乎千篇一律地建立在原型范畴理论之上,视角单一,阐释不见新意。笔者认为当前多义研究的最大缺陷在于忽视了语义结构的多层次性,对不同层面的意义不加区分,使得多义范畴的各个成员在抽象性或概括性上体现出巨大的差异。本文在认知语言学框架下从意象图式的角度对英语介词through的多义范畴结构进行了创新性研究,试图拓宽多义研究的视角,为多义研究范式注入新的活力。
本文一反以原型建构语义范畴的传统,转而以意象图式作为建构意义范畴的基本关系,描绘出包括抽象图式、含义图式、语境义图式在内的三层语义范畴结构。意象图式是抽象性的概念结构,根据细节具化程度的不同在使用中可以有不同的显示。根据抽象性的差别,图式可以划分出不同的层次。同一个层次的图式间形成延伸关系,上层图式和下层图式之间形成具化关系。每个图式和它下级的例示构成多义范畴的一个子范畴。通过对语料的分析,本文发现through在抽象图式层面共有四个成员,分别为THROUGH 1、THROUGH 2、THROUGH 3、THROUGH 4。其中THROUGH 1出现得最早,固化程度也最高,是抽象图式层面的原型成员。THROUGH 1的部分图式结构被凸显后通过转喻运作延伸出其它三个抽象图式。上述四个抽象图式通过细化各自概念结构中认知域的信息具化出下层的含义图式。含义图式通常最先在空间域中实现,通过隐喻映射的方式扩展到其它认知域,形成以空间含义图式为原型的子范畴。含义图式通过凸显图式中各个要素性质和特征的转喻运作形成下一级的语境义图式。抽象图式是超越语境的、具有最大概括性的图式;语境义图式表征了认知场景中的具体细节,对语境有着最大的依赖性,是言语交际行为中浮现出来的图式;含义图式则是介于两者之间的、集抽象性与具象性为一体的图式。三个层面的图式通过隐喻、转喻等认知机制形成的具化或延伸关系紧密联系在一起,形成了一个复杂的多层意义范畴结构。
本文的语料主要来源于美国当代英语语料库(COCA),主要采用了以下的研究方法:(1)以共时研究为主。虽然多义词的形成是词汇长期发展的结果,但可以从共时的角度对某一时期相对静止的词义状态进行探究,揭示该时间段内词义的存在状态和发展规律。(2)描写和解释相结合。本文在详细描写的角度上进行理论的分析和综合,既展示语言事实,又体现了理论的概括性。(3)以定性分析为主、定量分析为辅,在大量真实的自然语料基础上考察through包含的复杂语义结构。(4)从意象图式的组成要素和复杂原素两方面对意义的结构进行描写。
本文的创新性主要体现在对多义范畴内部结构的再认识上。传统认知多义研究利用原型成员建构多义范畴,语义结构呈现出边缘模糊的放射性链状结构。范畴成员的地位并不平等,而是根据其典型程度的差异排列。判断某个成员在语义范畴中的地位取决于家族相似性。家族相似性在不同成员身上会有不同的体现,但几乎没有一个要素是所有义项共有的。在多义范畴中,原型拥有最多的共有要素,是范畴的核心成员,非原型成员拥有较少的共有要素,它们通过家族相似性与原型成员发生联系,形成以原型为中心的辐射性多义网络。本文跳出目前广泛流行的多义研究范式,把多义范畴的构建和意象图式紧密联系在一起,在意义潜式中描绘出三个层次并行共现的多义模型。意象图式是在人们反复体验的过程中重复出现的概念结构,是意义的组织模式,在具体使用中可以激活不同的部分从而形成多个意义。在同一个层面上的图式抽象性和概括性基本一致,可以具化出下层例示,图式的例示本身可以作为低层图式具化出再下一级的例示。上层图式是所有下层例示共性的体现,二者形成语义范畴中的子范畴。这种层级多义模型突破了当前流行的辐射性网络结构模型,拓宽了多义研究领域的视野和空间。虽然本文的研究对象是through,但目的却是建立一个适用于所有多义词的解释模型,为类似的研究提供借鉴。Tyler和Evans (2003: 2)曾说过:“研究空间词的意义将会为理解语言、心理表征和人类经验提供基本的认识”。介词是最主要的一种空间词,虽然本文在研究深度上远不能与前辈专家比肩,但依然希望能够帮助读者加深对词汇多义的理解,并进一步感悟客观世界、人类语言以及认知行为的诸多奥妙。
根据以上研究成果,本文提出了该研究对词汇语义学尤其是多义研究、词汇教学、词典编纂等方面的启示。通过对英语介词through多义范畴结构的探讨,本文希望能够促进词汇多义理论的发展,通过突出范畴的层次性加深对范畴理论的理解,帮助词典编纂者更好地设置和解释义项,以及为英语学习者提供更为有效的词汇学习方法。当然由于认知语言学理论本身的主观性以及笔者研究能力所限,本文依然存在不少不足指出,对词汇多义的探讨有待更多优秀研究成果的出现。
Language is a dynamically evolving system. A word in its long development will gradually extend from a single meaning to a number of meanings, resulting in what is generally referred to as lexical polysemy. Polysemy is characteristic of all natural languages. As Lyons (1995) put it, there is, and there has been, no natural language where a word has only one meaning. Lexical polysemy is the result of the principle of linguistic economy and cognitive economy, for it has substantially reduced the size of vocabulary and relieves the burden of mental lexicon.
Inquiries into polysemy began as early as the Aristotelian times when it started to become a center of attention in the field of logics, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, etc. In the 1980’s, the rise of Cognitive Linguistics (CG) broke the traditional linguistic interpretations of meaning and proposed a completely new definition and implication. Meaning is no longer understood as a combination of discrete elements, but as closely related to cognitive phenomena, such as human experience, perception, conceptualization and categorization. Cognitive studies of polysemy also demonstrate striking differences from traditional ones. CG has carried out extensive studies of polysemous words that include prepositions. They emphasize associations between meanings, build up a radial network model of polysemy, and explain meaning extension in terms of conceptual metaphor and metonymy. Such work has uncovered the basic rules of polysemy which deviates from the formal trend of traditional semantics. But most of the researches in the cognitive field are based on the theory of prototype and categorization, revealing a unitary perspective with little novelty. The writer believes that such researches overlook the hierarchical nature of semantic structure and makes no distinction between different levels of meanings, so that members of the semantic category of a polysemous word exhibit enormous difference in abstractness or generality. This dissertation thus uses image schema to carry on an innovative research into the polysemy of the English preposition through under the CG framework, aiming at expanding relevant researches and injecting into them new vitality.
Contrary to prototype-based categorization, this dissertation uses image schema as a basic categorizing relationship and describes a three-layer semantic category including abstract schema, sense schema and pragmatic schema. Image schema, as an abstract conceptual structure, can manifest different fitness of detail description and develop its instantiations accordingly. It therefore can be separated into several levels according to degree of abstractness. Schemas on the same level form a relationship of extension, while between different levels, it is one of elaboration. An image schema, as well as its instantiations, stands as a sub-category of the whole semantic category. Data analysis shows that four members constitute the level of abstract schema, namely, THROUGH 1, THROUGH 2, THROUGH 3 and THROUGH 4. THROUGH 1 is the first schema that ever emerged, exhibiting the highest degree of entrenchment and acting as a prototype of this level. Part of its structure is profiled and metonymically extends to the three other schemas. These four schemas, by specifying cognitive domains, elaborate into the next level of sense schema. The latter usually manifests itself first in the domain of space, and then extends to other domains by means of metaphorical mapping, forming a sub-category centering on space sense schemas. Sense schemas again elaborate into the next level of pragmatic schema by metonymically profiling features of schema components. Abstract schemas are context-free, with maximum generality. Pragmatic schemas describe details of cognitive scenarios and are maximally context-dependent. Sense schemas are the middle level between them, demonstrating both abstractness and specificity. Schemas on the three levels are connected to each other by extension or elaboration through metaphor and metonymy, shaping a three-level complex semantic category.
Data of this research are selected from Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the following research methodologies are applied: (1) Relying on synchronic observations. Although polysemy is the result of diachronic development, it can be approached from a synchronic perspective in order to unfold its way of existing and evolving. (2) Combining description and interpretation. Detailed description that displays language facts is integrated with theoretical interpretation that analyzes and synthesizes relevant facts. (3) Using qualitative analysis supplemented by quantitative analysis so as to probe into the complex semantic structure of through on the basis of a large number of natural language data. (4) Describing semantic structure with both the elements of image schema and complex primitives.
Innovativeness of this research lies mainly in the reorientation of the semantic structure of polysemy. The mainstream cognitive studies of polysemy build up a radial network model with fuzzy boundaries based on prototype. Members of the same category have imbalanced status and are organized with respect to typicality. The judgment of a category member relies on family resemblance, the commonality between different members of a category, but there is hardly a common element that is shared by all of them. In such a radial network model, prototype owns the most common elements and is regarded as the core of a category; non-prototype members have less common elements and are connected to the prototype through family resemblance. This dissertation breaks away from the above-mentioned popular model and describes a three-layer semantic model by using image schema as a categorizing tool. An image schema is a recurrent conceptual structure in human experience which explains the organization of semantic structures. In language use, an image schema can be activated differently and form different meanings. Members of the same level exhibit similar schematicity or generality. They can develop more detailed instantiations which, as a lower level of schema, can develop further instantiations. A superordinate schema is the manifestation of commonality of all subordinate instantiations. They together form a sub-category of the whole semantic category. Such a model goes beyond the one of radial network, expands polysemy studies, and provides insights for relevant researches. Although only through is selected for observation, the research aims at building a theoretical framework for polysemy as a universal phenomenon. Tyler and Evans (2003: 22) once commented,“investigating the meanings associated with spatial particles will offer fundamental insights into the relation between language, mental representation and human experience.”Although in depth this research cannot compare with previous ones, the writer still hopes to deepen the readers’understanding of lexical polysemy and further unravel the intricate interaction between world, language and cognition.
Based on research findings, this dissertation promises implications for lexical semantics, polysemy in particular, vocabulary teaching and lexicography. It is expected that this research can motivate the development of lexical polysemy theories, broaden the understanding of categorization theory by focusing on its hierarchical order, help lexicographers better set and define semantic items, and offer more effective ways of vocabulary acquisition for English learners. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that due to subjectivity of CG in its own right and limitations of the researcher’s capability, this dissertation is far from perfection. More insightful findings are still to be expected.
引文
Alac, M. and Coulson, S. (2004). The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? Cognitive Science Online, l.2, 21-34.
Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & Anderson, J. R. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (4th ed.) (pp. 26-65). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barcelona, A. (2003). The case of a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing(pp. 81-102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Béjoint, H. (1994). Modern Lexicography: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benom, C. S. (2007). An empirical study of English‘THROUGH’: Lexical semantics, polysemy and the correctness fallacy. Retrieved March, 12, 2010, from http://pqdt.calis.edu.cn/Detail.aspx?pid=GzLX1THi3z8%3d.
Bernardo, G. (2009). Language, culture and cognition: A foundational cultural model in Polynesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (2000). Corpus Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Blank, A. (2003). Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlinch, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & Clarke, D.D. (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, (pp. 276-93). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.
Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp.181-206). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: M IT. Press.
Ci, J. (1987). Synonymy and polysemy. Lingua, 72, 315-331.
Cienki, A. (1997). Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In M. Verspoor, D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, (pp. 3-15). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, M. & Mandler, J. M. (1999). Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14, 241-268.
Clarke, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27-64). New York: Academic Press.
Correa-Beningfield, M., Kristiansen, G., Navarro-Ferrando, I. & Vandeloise, C. (2005). Image schemas vs.“Complex Primitives”in cross-cultural spatial cognition. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 343-366). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press.
Croft, W.(1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
Croft, W. & Cruise, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D.A. (2000). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 30-51). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cruse, D.A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuyckens, H. (1985). At: A typical English preposition. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 19, 49-64.
Davis, M. 2005. The advantage of using relational database for large corpora: Speed, advanced queries and unlimited annotations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 307-324.
Deane, P. (1987). Semantic theory and the problem of polysemy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Deane, P. (1988). Polysemy and cognition. Lingua, 75, 325-361.
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal Spatial Representations: On the Semantic Unity of‘Over’. In B. Hampe, & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.235-282). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schematic transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351-380.
Dewell, R. B. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe, & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369-393). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English preposition. in C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt ( Ed. ), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73-97) . Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Dirven, R. & Radden, G. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Doursat, R. & Petitot, J. (2005). Dynamical systems and cognitive linguistics: toward an active morphodynamical semantics. Neural Networks, 18(5-6), 628-638.
Ekberg, L. (2001). Transformations on the path-schema and a minimal lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 55(3), 301-323.
Evans, V. (2000). The structure of time: language, meaning and temporal cognition. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fellbaum, C. (1998). Wordnet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Family, N. (2008). Mapping semantic spaces: a constructionist account of the“light verb”xord?n“eat”in Persian. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 139-161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.(2003). Polysemy and conceptual blending. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 79-94). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Towards a descriptive frame work for spatial deixis. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place and Action, (pp. 31-59). London: John Wiley.
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK andits neighbors. In Svartvik, J. (Ed.), Proceedings from the 1991 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics, 35-66. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Flaherty, M. (1999). A watched pot: How we experience time. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzeles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223-272.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton.
Gernsbacher , M. A. & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
Gibson,J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings volume 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. California: University of California Press.
Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The Semantics of English Spatial Prepositions. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, San Diego
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hynnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammarticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hill, C. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right. A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenborn & W. Klein (Eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration (pp. 13-42). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. (1991). Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D. J. Napoli & J. A. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp. 145-170). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jakobson,R. (2002). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven, and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.40-46 ).Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. (2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 15-33). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. & Rohrer, T. (2007). We are live creatures: Embodiment, American pragmatism, and the cognitive organism. In J. Zlatev, T. Ziemke, R. Frank & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language, and mind, vol. 1 (pp.17-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte.
Kimmel, M. (2005). Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285-312). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-168)Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Bejamins Publication Company.
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space . Cognitive Linguistics , 8(4), 291 - 325.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories teach us about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive semantics. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio & P. Violi (Eds.), Meaning and mental representations (pp. 119-153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony, (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff G & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Langone, J. (2000). The mystery of time: Humanity’s quest for order and measure. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
Lassadi, B. (2000). Towards a semantic description of preposition AT: A cognitive approach. M.A. Thesis, Universite Laval.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207 - 246.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindkvist, K. G. (1972). The local sense of the prepositions over, above, and across studied in present-day English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Lindner, S. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with UP and OUT. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Mandler, J. (1988). The development of spatial cognition: On topological and Euclidean representation. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky & U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spatial cognition: Brain bases and development (pp. 423-432). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a babyⅡ: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587-604.
Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistics bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp.124-156). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, G. L. (1997).Polysemy and the creation of novel word meanings. In T. B. Ward, S. Smith & J. Vaid. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp.235 - 265). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,.
Nerlich, B. (2003). Polysemy: past and present. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 49-78). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language(pp. 3-30). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Newmeyer, F. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge: The M IT Press.
Nunberg, G. D. (1978). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Panther, K-U. & Radden. G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Quirk. R. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English language. New York: Longman.
Radden, G. (1997). Time is space. In B. Smieja & M. Tasch (Eds.), Human contact through Language and linguistics (pp. 66-147 ). Frankfurt: Lang.
Radden, G. & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metomy. In K-U Panther & R. Gunter (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Ravin,Y. & Leacock,C. (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1975). La Metaphor Vive. Paris:Edition du Seuil.
Robert, S. (2008). Words and their meanings. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 55-92). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic category. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
Rosch, E. (2004). The architecture of semantic domains. In P. A. Brandt, W. Wildgen & B. V. Heusden, (Eds.), Spaces, domains, and meanings (pp. 33-67). Bern: Peter Lang.
Rosch, E. & Merivis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573 - 605.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1983). Cognitive grammar and the structure of Dutch Uit and Polish Wy. CR:Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez , F. J . (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 109-132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Simpson, G. B., Krueger, M. A., Kang, H. &Elofson, A. (1994). Sentence context and meaning frequency effects in children’s processing of ambiguous words. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 62-72.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2001). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Beijing: Forign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How languages structure space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation:Theory, research and application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2005). The fundamental system of spatial schems in language. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 199-234). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299-326). Amsterdam: Johan Benjamins.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences, 25, 637-655.
Taylor, J. R. (2006). Polysemy and the Lexicon. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard & R. Dirven, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 51-80). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R., Cuyckens, H. & Dirven, R. (2003). New directions in cognitive lexical semantic research. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 1-28). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thornberg, L. & Panther. K-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W. Liebert, R. Gisela & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219) . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tomasello, M. (1987). Learning to use prepositions: A case study. Journal of Child Language, 14, 79-98.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applying cognitive linguistics (pp. 63-108). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid. H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vandeloise, C. (1987). CP in language acquisition. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 11-36.
Vandeloise, C. (1990). Representation, prototypes and centrality. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 403-437). London/New York: Routledge.
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 2, 157-184.
Vandeloise, C. (2003). Containment, support and linguistic relativity. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 393-426). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vandeloise, C. (2006). Are there spatial prepostions? In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 139-154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vanpary, J. (1984). Source metaphors in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 395-411. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zgusta, L. (1971). Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
董粤章、张韧. (2010).多义范畴习得与使用的语义-语用模型——HOT范畴的个案研究.南京社会科学, 2, 135-140.
方玲、汪兴富. (2010).美国当代英语语料库(COCA)的自主学习应用.中国外语, 6, 79-84.
高航. (2009).认知语法的语用视角:基于用法的动态模式述评.外语学刊, 5, 53-56.
葛本仪. (1985).汉语词汇研究.济南:山东教育出版社.
胡壮麟. (1997).语言.认识.隐喻.现代外语, 4, 49-57.
江怡. (2010).如何从拓扑学上理解哲学的性质.中国社会科学院研究生院学报, 3, 32-37.
雷淑娟. (2010).基于空间体认的语义与结构间对称非对称的认知分析.学术交流, 6, 160-163.
李德俊,曹军. (2001).语料库建设中概率抽样方法的应用.外语研究, 2, 59-60.
李福印. (2008).认知语言学概论.北京:北京大学出版社.
刘玉梅沈志和. (2010).认知词汇学.外语学刊, 5, 31-35.
冉永平. (2000).话语标记语的语用学研究综述.外语研究, 4, 8-14.
沈家煊. (1995).“有界”与“无界”.中国语文, 5, 367-380.
石毓智. (1995).时间的一维性对介词衍生的影响.中国语文, 1, 1-10.
谭业升. (2010).转喻的图式-例示与翻译的认知路径.外语教学与研究, 6, 465-471.
汪榕培. (2002).英语词汇学高级教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、卢晓娟.(1997).词汇学教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. (2001).语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社
王寅. (2007).认知语言学.上海:上海教育出版社.
王政红.(1989).略论现代汉语多义词的语义体系.苏州大学学报, 1, 20-26.
文旭、叶狂. (2003).概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性.外语学刊, 3, 1-7.
武占坤、王勤. (1983).现代汉语词汇概要.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.
肖好章. (2009).意义与语境:交互语境模式建构.外语与外语教学, 1,7-14.
许国璋. (1991).许国璋论语言.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
徐鹏. 2007.修辞和语用—汉英修辞手段语用对比研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓. (2005).含意与合情推理.外语教学与研究, 3, 163-169
亚里士多德. (1991).修辞学.北京:三联书店出版社.
杨敏.(2009).语言心智体系假说.外语与外语教学, 1, 22-28.
章宜华. (2010).认知语义学与新一代双语/双解学习词典的多维释义.外语教学与研究, 42(5),374-379.
张建理. (2010). OVER的双层多义网络模型.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 40(4), 179-188.
张维鼎. (2007).意义与认知范畴化.成都:四川大学出版社.
赵翠莲、李绍山. (2006).多义词心理表征之争.外国语, 6, 22-27.
赵艳芳.(2001).认知语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
周红辉、周昌乐. (2009).论认知语境动态建构中的隐喻和转喻思维模式.重庆大学学报, 15(6), 149-154.
朱彦.(2010).基于意象图式的动词穿的多义体系及意义连接机制.语言科学, 9(3), 287- 300.
Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & Anderson, J. R. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (4th ed.) (pp. 26-65). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barcelona, A. (2003). The case of a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing(pp. 81-102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Béjoint, H. (1994). Modern Lexicography: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benom, C. S. (2007). An empirical study of English‘THROUGH’: Lexical semantics, polysemy and the correctness fallacy. Retrieved March, 12, 2010, from http://pqdt.calis.edu.cn/Detail.aspx?pid=GzLX1THi3z8%3d.
Bernardo, G. (2009). Language, culture and cognition: A foundational cultural model in Polynesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (2000). Corpus Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Blank, A. (2003). Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlinch, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & Clarke, D.D. (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, (pp. 276-93). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.
Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp.181-206). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: M IT. Press.
Ci, J. (1987). Synonymy and polysemy. Lingua, 72, 315-331.
Cienki, A. (1997). Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In M. Verspoor, D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, (pp. 3-15). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, M. & Mandler, J. M. (1999). Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14, 241-268.
Clarke, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27-64). New York: Academic Press.
Correa-Beningfield, M., Kristiansen, G., Navarro-Ferrando, I. & Vandeloise, C. (2005). Image schemas vs.“Complex Primitives”in cross-cultural spatial cognition. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 343-366). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press.
Croft, W.(1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
Croft, W. & Cruise, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D.A. (2000). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 30-51). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cruse, D.A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuyckens, H. (1985). At: A typical English preposition. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 19, 49-64.
Davis, M. 2005. The advantage of using relational database for large corpora: Speed, advanced queries and unlimited annotations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 307-324.
Deane, P. (1987). Semantic theory and the problem of polysemy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Deane, P. (1988). Polysemy and cognition. Lingua, 75, 325-361.
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal Spatial Representations: On the Semantic Unity of‘Over’. In B. Hampe, & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.235-282). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schematic transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351-380.
Dewell, R. B. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe, & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369-393). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English preposition. in C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt ( Ed. ), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73-97) . Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Dirven, R. & Radden, G. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Doursat, R. & Petitot, J. (2005). Dynamical systems and cognitive linguistics: toward an active morphodynamical semantics. Neural Networks, 18(5-6), 628-638.
Ekberg, L. (2001). Transformations on the path-schema and a minimal lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 55(3), 301-323.
Evans, V. (2000). The structure of time: language, meaning and temporal cognition. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fellbaum, C. (1998). Wordnet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Family, N. (2008). Mapping semantic spaces: a constructionist account of the“light verb”xord?n“eat”in Persian. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 139-161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.(2003). Polysemy and conceptual blending. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 79-94). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Towards a descriptive frame work for spatial deixis. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place and Action, (pp. 31-59). London: John Wiley.
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK andits neighbors. In Svartvik, J. (Ed.), Proceedings from the 1991 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics, 35-66. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Flaherty, M. (1999). A watched pot: How we experience time. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzeles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223-272.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton.
Gernsbacher , M. A. & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
Gibson,J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings volume 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. California: University of California Press.
Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The Semantics of English Spatial Prepositions. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, San Diego
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hynnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammarticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hill, C. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right. A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenborn & W. Klein (Eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration (pp. 13-42). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. (1991). Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D. J. Napoli & J. A. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp. 145-170). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jakobson,R. (2002). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven, and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.40-46 ).Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. (2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 15-33). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. & Rohrer, T. (2007). We are live creatures: Embodiment, American pragmatism, and the cognitive organism. In J. Zlatev, T. Ziemke, R. Frank & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language, and mind, vol. 1 (pp.17-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte.
Kimmel, M. (2005). Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285-312). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-168)Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Bejamins Publication Company.
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space . Cognitive Linguistics , 8(4), 291 - 325.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories teach us about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive semantics. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio & P. Violi (Eds.), Meaning and mental representations (pp. 119-153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony, (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff G & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Langone, J. (2000). The mystery of time: Humanity’s quest for order and measure. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
Lassadi, B. (2000). Towards a semantic description of preposition AT: A cognitive approach. M.A. Thesis, Universite Laval.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207 - 246.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindkvist, K. G. (1972). The local sense of the prepositions over, above, and across studied in present-day English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Lindner, S. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with UP and OUT. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Mandler, J. (1988). The development of spatial cognition: On topological and Euclidean representation. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky & U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spatial cognition: Brain bases and development (pp. 423-432). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a babyⅡ: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587-604.
Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistics bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp.124-156). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, G. L. (1997).Polysemy and the creation of novel word meanings. In T. B. Ward, S. Smith & J. Vaid. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp.235 - 265). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,.
Nerlich, B. (2003). Polysemy: past and present. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 49-78). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language(pp. 3-30). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Newmeyer, F. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge: The M IT Press.
Nunberg, G. D. (1978). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Panther, K-U. & Radden. G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Quirk. R. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English language. New York: Longman.
Radden, G. (1997). Time is space. In B. Smieja & M. Tasch (Eds.), Human contact through Language and linguistics (pp. 66-147 ). Frankfurt: Lang.
Radden, G. & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metomy. In K-U Panther & R. Gunter (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Ravin,Y. & Leacock,C. (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1975). La Metaphor Vive. Paris:Edition du Seuil.
Robert, S. (2008). Words and their meanings. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 55-92). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic category. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
Rosch, E. (2004). The architecture of semantic domains. In P. A. Brandt, W. Wildgen & B. V. Heusden, (Eds.), Spaces, domains, and meanings (pp. 33-67). Bern: Peter Lang.
Rosch, E. & Merivis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573 - 605.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1983). Cognitive grammar and the structure of Dutch Uit and Polish Wy. CR:Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez , F. J . (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 109-132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Simpson, G. B., Krueger, M. A., Kang, H. &Elofson, A. (1994). Sentence context and meaning frequency effects in children’s processing of ambiguous words. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 62-72.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2001). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Beijing: Forign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How languages structure space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation:Theory, research and application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2005). The fundamental system of spatial schems in language. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 199-234). Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299-326). Amsterdam: Johan Benjamins.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences, 25, 637-655.
Taylor, J. R. (2006). Polysemy and the Lexicon. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard & R. Dirven, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 51-80). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R., Cuyckens, H. & Dirven, R. (2003). New directions in cognitive lexical semantic research. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 1-28). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thornberg, L. & Panther. K-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W. Liebert, R. Gisela & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219) . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tomasello, M. (1987). Learning to use prepositions: A case study. Journal of Child Language, 14, 79-98.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applying cognitive linguistics (pp. 63-108). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid. H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vandeloise, C. (1987). CP in language acquisition. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 11-36.
Vandeloise, C. (1990). Representation, prototypes and centrality. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 403-437). London/New York: Routledge.
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 2, 157-184.
Vandeloise, C. (2003). Containment, support and linguistic relativity. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 393-426). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vandeloise, C. (2006). Are there spatial prepostions? In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 139-154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vanpary, J. (1984). Source metaphors in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 395-411. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zgusta, L. (1971). Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
董粤章、张韧. (2010).多义范畴习得与使用的语义-语用模型——HOT范畴的个案研究.南京社会科学, 2, 135-140.
方玲、汪兴富. (2010).美国当代英语语料库(COCA)的自主学习应用.中国外语, 6, 79-84.
高航. (2009).认知语法的语用视角:基于用法的动态模式述评.外语学刊, 5, 53-56.
葛本仪. (1985).汉语词汇研究.济南:山东教育出版社.
胡壮麟. (1997).语言.认识.隐喻.现代外语, 4, 49-57.
江怡. (2010).如何从拓扑学上理解哲学的性质.中国社会科学院研究生院学报, 3, 32-37.
雷淑娟. (2010).基于空间体认的语义与结构间对称非对称的认知分析.学术交流, 6, 160-163.
李德俊,曹军. (2001).语料库建设中概率抽样方法的应用.外语研究, 2, 59-60.
李福印. (2008).认知语言学概论.北京:北京大学出版社.
刘玉梅沈志和. (2010).认知词汇学.外语学刊, 5, 31-35.
冉永平. (2000).话语标记语的语用学研究综述.外语研究, 4, 8-14.
沈家煊. (1995).“有界”与“无界”.中国语文, 5, 367-380.
石毓智. (1995).时间的一维性对介词衍生的影响.中国语文, 1, 1-10.
谭业升. (2010).转喻的图式-例示与翻译的认知路径.外语教学与研究, 6, 465-471.
汪榕培. (2002).英语词汇学高级教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
汪榕培、卢晓娟.(1997).词汇学教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅. (2001).语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社
王寅. (2007).认知语言学.上海:上海教育出版社.
王政红.(1989).略论现代汉语多义词的语义体系.苏州大学学报, 1, 20-26.
文旭、叶狂. (2003).概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性.外语学刊, 3, 1-7.
武占坤、王勤. (1983).现代汉语词汇概要.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.
肖好章. (2009).意义与语境:交互语境模式建构.外语与外语教学, 1,7-14.
许国璋. (1991).许国璋论语言.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
徐鹏. 2007.修辞和语用—汉英修辞手段语用对比研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓. (2005).含意与合情推理.外语教学与研究, 3, 163-169
亚里士多德. (1991).修辞学.北京:三联书店出版社.
杨敏.(2009).语言心智体系假说.外语与外语教学, 1, 22-28.
章宜华. (2010).认知语义学与新一代双语/双解学习词典的多维释义.外语教学与研究, 42(5),374-379.
张建理. (2010). OVER的双层多义网络模型.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 40(4), 179-188.
张维鼎. (2007).意义与认知范畴化.成都:四川大学出版社.
赵翠莲、李绍山. (2006).多义词心理表征之争.外国语, 6, 22-27.
赵艳芳.(2001).认知语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
周红辉、周昌乐. (2009).论认知语境动态建构中的隐喻和转喻思维模式.重庆大学学报, 15(6), 149-154.
朱彦.(2010).基于意象图式的动词穿的多义体系及意义连接机制.语言科学, 9(3), 287- 300.