汉越人体名词隐喻对比研究
|
摘要
人体词语是人类语言的基本词汇之一,而人体隐喻也是人类最为普遍的思维方式之一。人类认识世界是从自身开始的,并以自身作为衡量世界的标准。从这个意义上可以说,人类语言的发展,都是从“自身”开始的。人类把对人自身的认知类推到外部世界事物上,外部世界以拟人化的命名或描述。反过来,人类也把对外部世界的认知类推到人的自身,用外界事物给人体部位和器官命名或加以描述。这些人体隐喻及其成果是人体隐喻最为基本的类型。
人类的认知活动来源于身体经验。一方面,不同民族的身体经验可以是相同的,所以,我们可以假设人体隐喻概念系统是有普遍性的,而另一方面,文化背景的差异会影响人们的认知体验,因此我们又有理由推论,不同文化的人体隐喻概念系统中存在着差异。问题是,不同的语言文化究竟在多大程度上表现出人体隐喻概念系统的异和同,本文拟通过对汉、越两种语言的人体名词各方面对比来试图回答这个问题。
在综合运用词汇学、语义学、认知语言学、心理学等相关学科的理论和研究成果的基础上,本研究主要采用对比研究方法、描写与解释结合法、定性和定量结合法,对人体名词进行多角度、多层次探讨。除结语外,全文共分六章。
第一章绪论
本章介绍了人体隐喻在人类语言中的普遍存在。人类的思维具有“体认”(embodied)的特征,即人体及其器官是人类认知活动的基础和出发点之一,人类倾向于将对人体自身的认知结果投射到对其它物体的认知与理解中去。正如古希腊哲学家Protagoras (前485—前410)的著名格言所云："Man is the measure of all things"(人是万物的尺度)。因此,在各种语言中都很容易发现用人体及其部位作为衡量世界的标准而映射到其他事物,不管是抽象的还是具体事物都是如此。对此,国外的众多研究主要从几个方面进行探讨,如：从语义的角度研究人体词语；从文化视角研究人体词语；从认知角度研究人体词语；从人类学视角研究人体词语,等等。国内的研究从主要走的是从语言上验证认知语言学理论的路子。虽然对人体词语的研究越来越多,但也存在一些明显的不足,主要表现为几个方面：数量少,国内外就人体词语专题研究的成果不多见,且多数将重心集中于认知机制、特别是隐喻上；缺乏对人体词语语义特征的深刻揭示；缺乏跨语考察。因此我们选择了以汉越人体名词隐喻对比为主,附带以与英语的比较,力图从多角度比较不同文化背景下的汉越人体名词隐喻机制和类型的异同,并对人体名词的空间隐喻、容器隐喻及时间隐喻进行对比分析,以期对人体隐喻有更深入的解释和说明。
第二章隐喻的理论基础
“隐喻”一直被看作是一种修饰言辞的手段,一直属于修辞学的研究对象。到了20世纪80年代随着认知语言学的兴起,众多语言学家认为,隐喻不只是修辞手段,而是人类用来组织其概念系统的不可缺少的认知方式。
本章旨在确立本课题的理论基础,并在此基础上,勾画出汉、越人体名词隐喻与对比的理论框架。分别概括地介绍概念隐喻理论及其相关的理论概念,如：认知域之间的映射、相似性的联想、意象图式、认知经验理论等。按照Lakoff等人的理解,语言使用中隐喻只是一种表层的现象,真正起作用的是深藏在我们概念系统中的隐喻概念。事实上,人体语词的隐喻不但广泛存在,而且还形成了一定的概念和范畴类型即结构,方位和本体三种隐喻构成了隐喻的一般类型。概念隐喻的固定使一般的隐喻具有系统性,生成性和概括性。而在不同民族语言的隐喻建立的认知过程中,由于概念和意义体系,价值体系和思维方式不同,本体和喻体之间的映射方向也不同,所建立的概念隐喻也会有所侧重。这些异同在语言中的表现为本文进行不同语言之间人体语词的隐喻对比研究提供了哲学基础。
第三章：汉越人体名词语义对比研究。
隐喻的本质是一种认知活动,而隐喻的理解过程实际上是将喻体的显著语义特征转移到本体上,人体名词的隐喻反映了名词在语义层面上的演变规律,因此研究语义显得非常重要。本章从认知语义学出发,对人体名词的语义内容,即语义的分类、词义的隐喻性和转喻性转义等概念进行对比研究。
语义是语言的意义内容,词义的易变性和稳定性使意义演变具有共性的规律性和个性的差异性两个特征。只有对词义的共性和个性进行深入地分析和描写,并从中揭示决定意义变迁的认知原因,以及意义建构的深层机制,才能全面地把握词义系统。经考察发现,汉越语人体名词都有多义性的特征,即除了本义还有引申义。隐喻和转喻是人体名词引申和转类的基本方式,隐喻途径主要包括：形状类比、功能类比和位置类比；转喻途径主要包括四种借代关系：部分与整体、器官与其动作行为、器官与其功能特征和器官与其尺寸。此外,汉越人体名词转义都呈现出从头部到身躯、四肢再到内脏器官数量递减的趋势。
第四章汉越人体名词的转喻对比研究
认知语言学认为,“转喻”不仅是一种语言现象而且是人们一般的思维和行为方式。本章从汉越人体名词词义指称和词语转类现象入手,揭示其认知动因为转喻,并对这种认知方式进一步探讨分析。
考察结果表明,人体名词转类现象(名转动、名转形、名转量)在汉越语都普遍存在。本章对这几种转类进行了分类,研究了起因,对其进行了认知解释,并阐明了它们的作用。文中指出,人体名词的转类现象就是转喻的结果。其中,人体名动转类是一种事物的关系化,由指代事物的名词转类为表示关系的动词,也就是由指称事物变为陈述关系；人体名形转类可以理解为“用事物来表示该事物的性质的转喻现象”；而人体名量转类分两种情况,人体名形兼类词和人体名词临时当形容词。第一种转义途径是转喻过程,第二种,其实质就是用名词指称的事物所呈现的“空间形体”凸显属性来指代名量词所表示的数量,属于“容器-内容”之间的指代关系。
第五章,汉越人体名词的隐喻机制、类型与映射模式对比研究
本章从概念隐喻理论入手,对汉越语人体名词的隐喻机制与类型进行对比并得出结论：两种语言中,人体名词的隐喻现象都很丰富并具有相似的认知生成过程,从一个侧面反映了人对客观世界的认知过程的共通性。汉越语人体隐喻类型之所以大同小异,根本原因是在于共同的认知途径。不同民族,尽管语言不同,人们却以相同的方式理解和认识事物的特征,这使得不同语言之间的理解有着一些相同的类型。汉越人体名词隐喻也不例外。然而,相似性由于受语言使用者的不同心理因素、文化背景、生活环境等因素的影响,汉越人体隐喻类型也存在一些相异之处。此外,我们还将隐喻映射的对象进行归类并加以分析。由于人类的认知具有由已知到未知、由简单到复杂、由具体到抽象发展规律,因此,人类不断地把人体部位映射于外界事物的同时,也在与外界事物接触的体验中增加了对自身的了解,将对外界事物的认知及其结果反过来投射到人体。在这个人体域和非人体域的映射过程中,人体既可以作始源域,也可以是目标域。而非人体域可以是具体的动植物类、建筑类、容器类等,也可以是抽象的语言类、空间类以及思想感情类,等等。
第六章汉越人体空间、时间、容器和情感隐喻对比研究
空间在认知语言学中起着“元概念”(meta-concept)的作用,是“用来理解其他概念的概念”(Lakoff &Johnson,1980:14)。体验哲学和认知语言学的一个核心观点是：人类的范畴、概念、推理和心智是基于身体经验形成的,其最基本形式主要依赖于对身体部位、空间关系、力量运动等的感知而逐步形成。本章对人体的空间隐喻包括方位隐喻、容器隐喻和时间隐喻进行全面对比,对每一种隐喻类型进行认知探索和共性、个性的分析。特别是对方位词的不对称现象、混用现象以及人体名词空间语法化现象提出个人的见解。
另外,本章还对人体的情感隐喻进行尝试性的探讨,文章指出,人类的“喜、怒、哀、惧”等情绪属于人体生理的转喻和隐喻互动的现象。
Human Body Part Terms are the most fundamental vocabularies of all the languages in the world, while Human Body Metaphor is one of the most commonly used mode of thinking. The mankind's cognitive process of the world is by knowing ourselves first and using ourselves as a yardstick of the world. In this sense, the development of the human language starts from our own. Our cognition of the external world is through our own experience and we thus name them and describe them using personification. Vice versa, the cognition of ourselves is formed according to our knowledge of the external world. We name and describe our body parts and organs by them. These body metaphors and their achievement are the most basic ones in the whole concept of body metaphor.
The human's cognitive activity origins from the body experience. On one hand, the experience of different ethnic groups can be the same, thus we can hypothesize that the system of the Human Body Metaphor Concept is universal. On the other hand, the diversity of the cultural background would influence people's cognitive experience, which leads to the possible result that there are some differences in the system of the Human Body Metaphor Concept with different cultures. The problem is that to what extend would the language culture affect the system of the Human Body Metaphor concept. This essay tries to answer the question by looking into the comparison between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms.
Based on the comprehensive application of the theory and also the research findings of the disciplines such as lexicology, semantics, cognitive linguistics and psychology, this study mainly uses the methods of compare and contrast, description and explanation, and qualitative and quantitative analysis. This essay will discuss Human Body Part Terms thoroughly in the following seven chapters.
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the universal existence of Human Body Metaphor in each language. The thoughts of human beings have an embodied characteristic, that is to say, the human body and its organs are the basis and one of the starting points of human's cognitive activity. Human beings tend to map the results of self-cognition to the understanding of other objects and concepts. Protagoras, the philosopher of ancient Greek, once said:Man is the measure of all things. Therefore, there are many examples in different languages that would use human body part as a yardstick of the world firstly, then map it to other objects, whether it's a concrete one or not. This chapter reviews the research findings concerning about the human body metaphor home and abroad. Foreign studies focus on the aspects such as the semantic analysis of Human Body Metaphor, the cultural aspect of Human Body Part Terms and the study of them in an anthropologic perspective and so on. Domestic studies mainly stay in the linguistic level. They try to verify cognitive linguistic theory with the linguistic knowledge. Generally speaking, there are a growing number of studies about Human Body Part Terms, but there are also some weak points. The results about the specified semantic studies of Human Body Part Terms currently are not enough; the studies focus too much on the cognitive mechanism, especially metaphor; there's also a lack of profound demonstration about the semantic features of Human Body Part Terms; and, there's a shortage of inter-language research. Thus, we choose the comparison of Human Body Part Terms between Chinese and Vietnamese as the main part, and also with the comparison of English, we try to give a further explanation and description of Human Body Metaphor by studying the semantic situation of the Human Body Part Terms in different languages from many aspects, analyzing the metaphorical basis and cultural elements of its formation and development, comparing the metaphorical mechanism and the patterns between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms under different cultural background and, comparing and contrasting Spatial Metaphor, Container Metaphor and Time Metaphor.
Chapter 2 Basic Theory of Metaphor
Metaphor has always been treated as a way to modify the speech and it is an exceptional phenomenon, thus it has long been studied in the field of rhetoric. With the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics in the 1980s, many linguists began to treat metaphor more than a way of rhetoric, but also a cognitive method which is necessary for human beings to organize the conceptual system. This chapter aims to lay the theoretical foundation of this project. Also, it will establish the theoretical frame of the metaphor and the contrast between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor. This essay uses the theory of Conceptual Metaphor and some relative theories, such as the Mapping in the Domain, some similar association, the Image Schema, the theory of cognitive experience and so on. According to Lakoff's understanding, the metaphor in the language is only a superficial phenomenon, what really matters is the concept of metaphor that deeply exists in our conceptual system. Actually, not only do the Human Body Part Terms exist in a large scale, but also have they already formed a certain concept and a category, which is a metaphorical category, consists of Structural, Spatial and Ontological Metaphor. The stability of the Conceptual Metaphor makes the common metaphor a systematic, generative and brief one.
In the cognitive process of metaphor in different ethnic groups which use different language, the directions of the Mapping between ontology and vehicle would be different due to the different concepts, different systems of meaning and values, and different modes of thinking. Therefore, extra emphasis is placed on the established Conceptual Metaphor. These differences showed in language lay a realistic philosophical foundation for the comparative study of the metaphor in different Human Body Part Terms of different languages.
Chapter 3 Comparative Study of the Semantic Structure in Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms
The essence of metaphor is a kind of cognitive activity. The understanding process is actually a transformational one which transfers the vehicle's distinct semantic features into the ontology. The Human Body Part Terms reflect the transformational rules that nouns have on a semantic level, which makes the study of semantics really important. This chapter tries to have a comparative study of the Human Body Part Terms'semantic contents from a cognitive linguistic perspective, including the study of semantic category, the polymerization of polysemy in semantics, metaphor and metonymy in the word meaning.
Semantics is the meaning of a language. The variability and stability of the word meaning make the meaning shift process have both similarities and differences. Only by a thorough analysis and description of the similarities and differences of the semantic features and by revealing the cognitive reasons that determine the meaning shift process and the profound semantic mechanism, can we have a full understanding of the semantic system, thus can we handle the word system well. According to our research findings, the Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms both have the feature of polysemy, that is to say, there is an extended meaning besides its original meaning. Metaphor and metonymy are the basic ways to extend and transfer Human Body Part Terms. The metaphorical methods include the comparison of the shape, function and position; while the metonymic methods mainly include four metonymy related relationship:the part-whole relation, the relations between the organ and its movement, its function and its size. The meaning shift process of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms show a decreasing trend from the head to the body and from the limbs to the internal organs.
Chapter 4 The Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metonymy
Metonymy, like metaphor, is not only a linguistic form but also a powerful cognitive tool for people's conceptualization of the world:"Metonymy allows us to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation to something else; metonymic concepts structure not just our language but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions; Metonymic concepts (like THE PART FOR THE WHOLE) are part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk." Lakoff (1980:37)
The research findings show that there is a widespread existence of Human Body Part Terms transformation in both Chinese and Vietnamese. But the transformations in Chinese are more distinct, more plentiful and more active, especially in the cases of noun to verb, noun to adjective and noun to classifier.
Chapter 5 The Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor
This chapter starts from the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and by comparing and contrasting the metaphor mechanism and type of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms, it reaches a conclusion that the generative process of cognition in Human Body Metaphor is very plentiful and these phenomena have similarities. This also shows a universal feature when people get to know the objective world on the other hand. The fundamental reason why Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor are much alike is that they have the same cognitive method. Although different ethnic groups have different languages, people use the same method to know and understand all kinds of features, which has divided the understandings of different languages into some certain patterns. The Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor are no exceptions. Both of them are based on the similarity. However, due to the speakers' different psychological situations, cultural backgrounds, and living standards, there are still some slight differences between them. Apart from the discussion about the metaphorical type and mechanism, we also classify and analyze the target of the metaphorical Mapping. People's cognitive process is from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complicated and from the concrete to the abstract. Therefore, human beings constantly map the human body part to the external objects, and in the meanwhile, we also have improved our self-understandings, so that we in turn map our understandings of the external world to the human body. In this body-part Domain and non-body Domain Mapping process, human body can act as both Source Domain and Target Domain. The non-body Domain can not only be fauna and flora category, architectural category and container category, but also can be abstract ones, such as linguistic category, spatial category and emotional category.
Chapter 6 the Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body's Spatial, Container, Time and Emotional Metaphor
The space acts as the meta-concept in Cognitive Linguistics, it's a concept that is used to understand other concepts. (Lakoff &Johnson,1980:14) The core of Embodied Philosophy and Cognitive Linguistics is the formations of human's category, concept, reasoning and intelligence, while its basic form mainly depends on the perception of the body parts, spatial relations and strength exercise training and so on. This chapter will have a comprehensive study of Human Body Spatial Metaphor (including Orientational Metaphor, Container Metaphor and Time Metaphor. Then it will explore each metaphorical type cognitively and analyze their similarities and differences. A personal understanding of the asymmetry and mixture of the orientational words and also the grammatical phenomenon of Human Body Part Terms will be pointed out.
Chapter 7 Conclusion
This chapter will summarize all the studies presented in this essay. This paper's major research findings, its innovation and the problems which need further exploration will also be included.
人类的认知活动来源于身体经验。一方面,不同民族的身体经验可以是相同的,所以,我们可以假设人体隐喻概念系统是有普遍性的,而另一方面,文化背景的差异会影响人们的认知体验,因此我们又有理由推论,不同文化的人体隐喻概念系统中存在着差异。问题是,不同的语言文化究竟在多大程度上表现出人体隐喻概念系统的异和同,本文拟通过对汉、越两种语言的人体名词各方面对比来试图回答这个问题。
在综合运用词汇学、语义学、认知语言学、心理学等相关学科的理论和研究成果的基础上,本研究主要采用对比研究方法、描写与解释结合法、定性和定量结合法,对人体名词进行多角度、多层次探讨。除结语外,全文共分六章。
第一章绪论
本章介绍了人体隐喻在人类语言中的普遍存在。人类的思维具有“体认”(embodied)的特征,即人体及其器官是人类认知活动的基础和出发点之一,人类倾向于将对人体自身的认知结果投射到对其它物体的认知与理解中去。正如古希腊哲学家Protagoras (前485—前410)的著名格言所云："Man is the measure of all things"(人是万物的尺度)。因此,在各种语言中都很容易发现用人体及其部位作为衡量世界的标准而映射到其他事物,不管是抽象的还是具体事物都是如此。对此,国外的众多研究主要从几个方面进行探讨,如：从语义的角度研究人体词语；从文化视角研究人体词语；从认知角度研究人体词语；从人类学视角研究人体词语,等等。国内的研究从主要走的是从语言上验证认知语言学理论的路子。虽然对人体词语的研究越来越多,但也存在一些明显的不足,主要表现为几个方面：数量少,国内外就人体词语专题研究的成果不多见,且多数将重心集中于认知机制、特别是隐喻上；缺乏对人体词语语义特征的深刻揭示；缺乏跨语考察。因此我们选择了以汉越人体名词隐喻对比为主,附带以与英语的比较,力图从多角度比较不同文化背景下的汉越人体名词隐喻机制和类型的异同,并对人体名词的空间隐喻、容器隐喻及时间隐喻进行对比分析,以期对人体隐喻有更深入的解释和说明。
第二章隐喻的理论基础
“隐喻”一直被看作是一种修饰言辞的手段,一直属于修辞学的研究对象。到了20世纪80年代随着认知语言学的兴起,众多语言学家认为,隐喻不只是修辞手段,而是人类用来组织其概念系统的不可缺少的认知方式。
本章旨在确立本课题的理论基础,并在此基础上,勾画出汉、越人体名词隐喻与对比的理论框架。分别概括地介绍概念隐喻理论及其相关的理论概念,如：认知域之间的映射、相似性的联想、意象图式、认知经验理论等。按照Lakoff等人的理解,语言使用中隐喻只是一种表层的现象,真正起作用的是深藏在我们概念系统中的隐喻概念。事实上,人体语词的隐喻不但广泛存在,而且还形成了一定的概念和范畴类型即结构,方位和本体三种隐喻构成了隐喻的一般类型。概念隐喻的固定使一般的隐喻具有系统性,生成性和概括性。而在不同民族语言的隐喻建立的认知过程中,由于概念和意义体系,价值体系和思维方式不同,本体和喻体之间的映射方向也不同,所建立的概念隐喻也会有所侧重。这些异同在语言中的表现为本文进行不同语言之间人体语词的隐喻对比研究提供了哲学基础。
第三章：汉越人体名词语义对比研究。
隐喻的本质是一种认知活动,而隐喻的理解过程实际上是将喻体的显著语义特征转移到本体上,人体名词的隐喻反映了名词在语义层面上的演变规律,因此研究语义显得非常重要。本章从认知语义学出发,对人体名词的语义内容,即语义的分类、词义的隐喻性和转喻性转义等概念进行对比研究。
语义是语言的意义内容,词义的易变性和稳定性使意义演变具有共性的规律性和个性的差异性两个特征。只有对词义的共性和个性进行深入地分析和描写,并从中揭示决定意义变迁的认知原因,以及意义建构的深层机制,才能全面地把握词义系统。经考察发现,汉越语人体名词都有多义性的特征,即除了本义还有引申义。隐喻和转喻是人体名词引申和转类的基本方式,隐喻途径主要包括：形状类比、功能类比和位置类比；转喻途径主要包括四种借代关系：部分与整体、器官与其动作行为、器官与其功能特征和器官与其尺寸。此外,汉越人体名词转义都呈现出从头部到身躯、四肢再到内脏器官数量递减的趋势。
第四章汉越人体名词的转喻对比研究
认知语言学认为,“转喻”不仅是一种语言现象而且是人们一般的思维和行为方式。本章从汉越人体名词词义指称和词语转类现象入手,揭示其认知动因为转喻,并对这种认知方式进一步探讨分析。
考察结果表明,人体名词转类现象(名转动、名转形、名转量)在汉越语都普遍存在。本章对这几种转类进行了分类,研究了起因,对其进行了认知解释,并阐明了它们的作用。文中指出,人体名词的转类现象就是转喻的结果。其中,人体名动转类是一种事物的关系化,由指代事物的名词转类为表示关系的动词,也就是由指称事物变为陈述关系；人体名形转类可以理解为“用事物来表示该事物的性质的转喻现象”；而人体名量转类分两种情况,人体名形兼类词和人体名词临时当形容词。第一种转义途径是转喻过程,第二种,其实质就是用名词指称的事物所呈现的“空间形体”凸显属性来指代名量词所表示的数量,属于“容器-内容”之间的指代关系。
第五章,汉越人体名词的隐喻机制、类型与映射模式对比研究
本章从概念隐喻理论入手,对汉越语人体名词的隐喻机制与类型进行对比并得出结论：两种语言中,人体名词的隐喻现象都很丰富并具有相似的认知生成过程,从一个侧面反映了人对客观世界的认知过程的共通性。汉越语人体隐喻类型之所以大同小异,根本原因是在于共同的认知途径。不同民族,尽管语言不同,人们却以相同的方式理解和认识事物的特征,这使得不同语言之间的理解有着一些相同的类型。汉越人体名词隐喻也不例外。然而,相似性由于受语言使用者的不同心理因素、文化背景、生活环境等因素的影响,汉越人体隐喻类型也存在一些相异之处。此外,我们还将隐喻映射的对象进行归类并加以分析。由于人类的认知具有由已知到未知、由简单到复杂、由具体到抽象发展规律,因此,人类不断地把人体部位映射于外界事物的同时,也在与外界事物接触的体验中增加了对自身的了解,将对外界事物的认知及其结果反过来投射到人体。在这个人体域和非人体域的映射过程中,人体既可以作始源域,也可以是目标域。而非人体域可以是具体的动植物类、建筑类、容器类等,也可以是抽象的语言类、空间类以及思想感情类,等等。
第六章汉越人体空间、时间、容器和情感隐喻对比研究
空间在认知语言学中起着“元概念”(meta-concept)的作用,是“用来理解其他概念的概念”(Lakoff &Johnson,1980:14)。体验哲学和认知语言学的一个核心观点是：人类的范畴、概念、推理和心智是基于身体经验形成的,其最基本形式主要依赖于对身体部位、空间关系、力量运动等的感知而逐步形成。本章对人体的空间隐喻包括方位隐喻、容器隐喻和时间隐喻进行全面对比,对每一种隐喻类型进行认知探索和共性、个性的分析。特别是对方位词的不对称现象、混用现象以及人体名词空间语法化现象提出个人的见解。
另外,本章还对人体的情感隐喻进行尝试性的探讨,文章指出,人类的“喜、怒、哀、惧”等情绪属于人体生理的转喻和隐喻互动的现象。
Human Body Part Terms are the most fundamental vocabularies of all the languages in the world, while Human Body Metaphor is one of the most commonly used mode of thinking. The mankind's cognitive process of the world is by knowing ourselves first and using ourselves as a yardstick of the world. In this sense, the development of the human language starts from our own. Our cognition of the external world is through our own experience and we thus name them and describe them using personification. Vice versa, the cognition of ourselves is formed according to our knowledge of the external world. We name and describe our body parts and organs by them. These body metaphors and their achievement are the most basic ones in the whole concept of body metaphor.
The human's cognitive activity origins from the body experience. On one hand, the experience of different ethnic groups can be the same, thus we can hypothesize that the system of the Human Body Metaphor Concept is universal. On the other hand, the diversity of the cultural background would influence people's cognitive experience, which leads to the possible result that there are some differences in the system of the Human Body Metaphor Concept with different cultures. The problem is that to what extend would the language culture affect the system of the Human Body Metaphor concept. This essay tries to answer the question by looking into the comparison between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms.
Based on the comprehensive application of the theory and also the research findings of the disciplines such as lexicology, semantics, cognitive linguistics and psychology, this study mainly uses the methods of compare and contrast, description and explanation, and qualitative and quantitative analysis. This essay will discuss Human Body Part Terms thoroughly in the following seven chapters.
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the universal existence of Human Body Metaphor in each language. The thoughts of human beings have an embodied characteristic, that is to say, the human body and its organs are the basis and one of the starting points of human's cognitive activity. Human beings tend to map the results of self-cognition to the understanding of other objects and concepts. Protagoras, the philosopher of ancient Greek, once said:Man is the measure of all things. Therefore, there are many examples in different languages that would use human body part as a yardstick of the world firstly, then map it to other objects, whether it's a concrete one or not. This chapter reviews the research findings concerning about the human body metaphor home and abroad. Foreign studies focus on the aspects such as the semantic analysis of Human Body Metaphor, the cultural aspect of Human Body Part Terms and the study of them in an anthropologic perspective and so on. Domestic studies mainly stay in the linguistic level. They try to verify cognitive linguistic theory with the linguistic knowledge. Generally speaking, there are a growing number of studies about Human Body Part Terms, but there are also some weak points. The results about the specified semantic studies of Human Body Part Terms currently are not enough; the studies focus too much on the cognitive mechanism, especially metaphor; there's also a lack of profound demonstration about the semantic features of Human Body Part Terms; and, there's a shortage of inter-language research. Thus, we choose the comparison of Human Body Part Terms between Chinese and Vietnamese as the main part, and also with the comparison of English, we try to give a further explanation and description of Human Body Metaphor by studying the semantic situation of the Human Body Part Terms in different languages from many aspects, analyzing the metaphorical basis and cultural elements of its formation and development, comparing the metaphorical mechanism and the patterns between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms under different cultural background and, comparing and contrasting Spatial Metaphor, Container Metaphor and Time Metaphor.
Chapter 2 Basic Theory of Metaphor
Metaphor has always been treated as a way to modify the speech and it is an exceptional phenomenon, thus it has long been studied in the field of rhetoric. With the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics in the 1980s, many linguists began to treat metaphor more than a way of rhetoric, but also a cognitive method which is necessary for human beings to organize the conceptual system. This chapter aims to lay the theoretical foundation of this project. Also, it will establish the theoretical frame of the metaphor and the contrast between Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor. This essay uses the theory of Conceptual Metaphor and some relative theories, such as the Mapping in the Domain, some similar association, the Image Schema, the theory of cognitive experience and so on. According to Lakoff's understanding, the metaphor in the language is only a superficial phenomenon, what really matters is the concept of metaphor that deeply exists in our conceptual system. Actually, not only do the Human Body Part Terms exist in a large scale, but also have they already formed a certain concept and a category, which is a metaphorical category, consists of Structural, Spatial and Ontological Metaphor. The stability of the Conceptual Metaphor makes the common metaphor a systematic, generative and brief one.
In the cognitive process of metaphor in different ethnic groups which use different language, the directions of the Mapping between ontology and vehicle would be different due to the different concepts, different systems of meaning and values, and different modes of thinking. Therefore, extra emphasis is placed on the established Conceptual Metaphor. These differences showed in language lay a realistic philosophical foundation for the comparative study of the metaphor in different Human Body Part Terms of different languages.
Chapter 3 Comparative Study of the Semantic Structure in Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms
The essence of metaphor is a kind of cognitive activity. The understanding process is actually a transformational one which transfers the vehicle's distinct semantic features into the ontology. The Human Body Part Terms reflect the transformational rules that nouns have on a semantic level, which makes the study of semantics really important. This chapter tries to have a comparative study of the Human Body Part Terms'semantic contents from a cognitive linguistic perspective, including the study of semantic category, the polymerization of polysemy in semantics, metaphor and metonymy in the word meaning.
Semantics is the meaning of a language. The variability and stability of the word meaning make the meaning shift process have both similarities and differences. Only by a thorough analysis and description of the similarities and differences of the semantic features and by revealing the cognitive reasons that determine the meaning shift process and the profound semantic mechanism, can we have a full understanding of the semantic system, thus can we handle the word system well. According to our research findings, the Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms both have the feature of polysemy, that is to say, there is an extended meaning besides its original meaning. Metaphor and metonymy are the basic ways to extend and transfer Human Body Part Terms. The metaphorical methods include the comparison of the shape, function and position; while the metonymic methods mainly include four metonymy related relationship:the part-whole relation, the relations between the organ and its movement, its function and its size. The meaning shift process of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms show a decreasing trend from the head to the body and from the limbs to the internal organs.
Chapter 4 The Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metonymy
Metonymy, like metaphor, is not only a linguistic form but also a powerful cognitive tool for people's conceptualization of the world:"Metonymy allows us to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation to something else; metonymic concepts structure not just our language but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions; Metonymic concepts (like THE PART FOR THE WHOLE) are part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk." Lakoff (1980:37)
The research findings show that there is a widespread existence of Human Body Part Terms transformation in both Chinese and Vietnamese. But the transformations in Chinese are more distinct, more plentiful and more active, especially in the cases of noun to verb, noun to adjective and noun to classifier.
Chapter 5 The Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor
This chapter starts from the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and by comparing and contrasting the metaphor mechanism and type of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Part Terms, it reaches a conclusion that the generative process of cognition in Human Body Metaphor is very plentiful and these phenomena have similarities. This also shows a universal feature when people get to know the objective world on the other hand. The fundamental reason why Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor are much alike is that they have the same cognitive method. Although different ethnic groups have different languages, people use the same method to know and understand all kinds of features, which has divided the understandings of different languages into some certain patterns. The Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body Metaphor are no exceptions. Both of them are based on the similarity. However, due to the speakers' different psychological situations, cultural backgrounds, and living standards, there are still some slight differences between them. Apart from the discussion about the metaphorical type and mechanism, we also classify and analyze the target of the metaphorical Mapping. People's cognitive process is from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complicated and from the concrete to the abstract. Therefore, human beings constantly map the human body part to the external objects, and in the meanwhile, we also have improved our self-understandings, so that we in turn map our understandings of the external world to the human body. In this body-part Domain and non-body Domain Mapping process, human body can act as both Source Domain and Target Domain. The non-body Domain can not only be fauna and flora category, architectural category and container category, but also can be abstract ones, such as linguistic category, spatial category and emotional category.
Chapter 6 the Comparative Study of Chinese and Vietnamese Human Body's Spatial, Container, Time and Emotional Metaphor
The space acts as the meta-concept in Cognitive Linguistics, it's a concept that is used to understand other concepts. (Lakoff &Johnson,1980:14) The core of Embodied Philosophy and Cognitive Linguistics is the formations of human's category, concept, reasoning and intelligence, while its basic form mainly depends on the perception of the body parts, spatial relations and strength exercise training and so on. This chapter will have a comprehensive study of Human Body Spatial Metaphor (including Orientational Metaphor, Container Metaphor and Time Metaphor. Then it will explore each metaphorical type cognitively and analyze their similarities and differences. A personal understanding of the asymmetry and mixture of the orientational words and also the grammatical phenomenon of Human Body Part Terms will be pointed out.
Chapter 7 Conclusion
This chapter will summarize all the studies presented in this essay. This paper's major research findings, its innovation and the problems which need further exploration will also be included.
引文
②恩斯特·卡西尔,《人伦》,甘阳译,上海译文出版社,1985年19页
③《现代汉语词典》商务印书馆,2005年1208页
④恩斯特·卡西尔,《人伦》,甘阳译,上海译文出版社,1985年140页
⑤Lakoff,G.& Johnson, M.1980.Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:Universily of Chicago Press. P3.
⑥束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年29页
⑧Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. P3
⑨Richards. I. A.1065. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford University Press. P119
⑩《中国大百科全书.心理学》,中国大百科全书出版社1991,193页
11 An image schema is "a recurrent pattern, shape, and regularity in, or of, these ongoing ordering activities. These patterns emerge as meaningful structures for us chiefly at the level of our bodily movements through space, our manipulation of objects, and our perceptual interactions".
12Spatial motion group(Containment;Path;Source-Path-Goal;Blockage;Center-Periphery; Cycle;Cyclic Climax):Force Group(Compulsion;Counterforce;Diversion:Removal of Restraint；Enablement；Attraction；Link;Scale);Balance Group(Axis Balance;Point Balance; Twin-Pan Balance;Equilibrium)
14 我们之所以介绍概念转喻的理论,因为“隐喻,,一词通常被视为“隐喻、转喻和隐转喻,,等概念的总称。再者,转喻和隐喻之间有着密切的互动关系。许多语言表达中,隐喻和转喻似乎团成一体,形成隐转喻现象。因此,运用概念隐喻和概念转喻理论进行研究可对语言现象提出更透彻、更全面的认知解释。
15 王冬梅,《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001年,13页。
21 The metaphoric is base upon substitution and similarity, the metonymic upon predication, contexture and contiguity...The realtion of similarity is suppressed in the former, the relation of contiguity in the latter type of aphasia. Metaphor is alien to the similarity disorder, and metonymy to the contiguity disorder. (Roman 1956:41-42)
22 Metaphor and metonymy are different kinds of processes. Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding. Metonymy, on the other hand, has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand for another. (Lakoff 1980:36)
23 示意图转引自Olga Velasco. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Image-Schemas:An Analysis of Conceptual Interaction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. Volume 3 (2001-2) P50.
24 "In actuality we feel that no metaphor can ever be comprehended or even adequately represented independently of its experiential basis" (Lakoff & Johnson,1980:19)
25 "experiential gestalts which are based on the nature or our bodies, our interactions with our physical environment and our interactions with other people within our culture. These experiential gestalts serve as the grounding of conceptual metaphors" (Lakoff & Johnson 1980:117)
26 The ability to use the human body as a structural template to understand and describe other objects can be assumed to be universal; hence, we may expect this to be reflected in all languages". Heine (1997: 143)
27 The choice of these body-part metaphors and those that refer to our physical environment comes from this cognitive view that language structure "is the product of our interaction with the world around us " (Heine 1997:3)
28 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年59页
29 黑格尔《美学》朱光潜译,商务印书馆 1979年31-32页
30 戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年26页
31 Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. P22.
32 王德春,《词汇学研究》,山东教育出版社,1983年88页
34 马提索夫,藏面语族语言的研究和展望——马提索夫教授访问记,民族语文,1990年,第1期7页。
35 Polysemy means that "each text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings" (Hebdige 1979:117)
36 The main point concerning polysemy is that is "arises from the fact that there are systematic relationships between different cognitive models and between elements of the same model. The same word is often used for elements that stand in such cognitive relations for one another" (Lakoff 1987::13)
Polysemy is the norm for lexical units and must therefore be accommodated by linguistic theory as a natural, unproblematic phenomenon (Langacker 1988:50)
38 Richards. I. A.1936/1950. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford UP, P345
39 白解红,《多义聚合现象的认知研究》外语与外语教学,2001年12期9页。
40 因汉越人体同称名词不对应,如汉语的“眼/目”、“牙/齿”、“脸/面”、等,相对应的越南用"mat" "rang"、"mat"等；或越南语的"than/minh"、"mong/dit"、"long/ruot",相对应的汉语用“身”、“臀”、“肠”,导致41个越南语的部位名词相对应的汉语有46个。
43 何爱晶 《名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习》,西南大学博士论文,2009年110页
46 Lakoff.G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind Chicago:University of Chicago Press.P177
47 沈家煊《转指和转喻》当代语言学,1999年第1期4页
48 沈家煊,《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社,1999年7页
49 王力,《中国语法理论》中华书局,1954年32页。
50 Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge P207
51 《中国大百科全书.心理学》,中国大百科全书出版社,1991版,193页。
52 倪宝元,《修辞》,浙江人民出版社,1983年216页
53 Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark.1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought, New York. Basic Books P199.
54 意大利哲学家维柯曾指出：“值得注意的是在一切语种里大部分涉及无生命的表达方式都用人体及其各部分以及用人的感觉和情欲的隐喻来形成的”(李国南；2001：102)；泰勒(1958)说史前人类无法区分自然物和超自然物。在他们的世界里,所有的东西都是人类化的。(Panther; Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden,1999:45)； “在这个世界上,人类总是优先于非人类,事物的观察总是主观性优先于客观性,具体的事物往往比抽象事物更为显著,与人们接触的事物总比不接触的更显著,功能性的事物比无功能性的事物显得更为重要”
Heine Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford University Press. P40.
56 张敏,《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》,中国社会科学出版社,1998年41页。
57 卢卫中,人体隐喻化的认知特点,外语教学,2003年地第12期
58 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年105页。
59 同上,115-116页
60 戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年26页
61Lakoff &Johnson concluded that spatial metaphors have the following characteristics:
1. Most of our fundamental concepts are organized in terms of one or more spatial metaphors.
2. There is all internal systematicity to each spatial metaphor.
3. There is an overall external systematicity among the Various spatial metaphors, which defines coherence among them.
4. Spatial metaphors are rooted in physical and cultural experiences; they are not randomly assigned.
5. In many cases spatialization is so essential a part of a concept that it is difficult for us to imagine any alternative metaphor that lnigbt structure the concept.
6, Our physical and cultural experience provides us many possible bases for spatial metaphors. Which ones are chosen, and which ones are major, may vary from culture to cultlffe.
62 Lakoff & Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guid to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press. P99
63 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年73页。
64 赵元任(1979：279)方位词的结合面一般都很宽,(这是尽管它是黏着的,我们还是把它看作是一个此类的主要理由),但一对反义的方位词的结合面常常不相等,“上”和“里”比“下”和“外”。
65 崔希亮(2001：172-187)现代汉语的方位词中,使用频率最高、表达功能最多的方位词有三个“上”、“下”、“里”(中)。它们与介词配合,除了表达基本的空间方位关系以外还能表达范围、方面和条件等。
66 付宁,《语法化视角下的现代汉语单音方位词研究》,2009年,山东大学博士学位论文34页
67 李文莉《人体隐喻系统研究》,华东师范大学2007年硕士学位论文,75页
68 Lyons, John (1977) "Deixis, space and time" in Semantics, Cambridge University Press. P 690
69 Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. P376
70 朱晓军《空间范畴的认知语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文,2008年,129页
71 “空间范围的形状可分成“点、线、面、体”四种类型,其中“点”是把物体所处的位置看作是一个点,不考虑位置在长、宽、高三个维度上的特征；“线”是把物体所处的位置看作一条线,即只考虑这个位置在长度上的特征而不考虑其在宽度和高度上的特征；“面”是把物体所处的位置看作为一个表面,只考虑这个位置在长度和宽度上的特征,而不考虑其在高度上的特征,“体”则表示物体三维空间的语言范畴”(齐沪扬,1998：38)
72 转引自朱晓军,《空间范畴语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文2008年,第130页
73 刘丹青,《语法化与语法研究》,商务印书馆,2005年,141页
74 We are physical being, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Thus we view them as containers with an inside and an outside. (Lakoff 1980:29)
75Ungerer.F & H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Addison Weslep Longman Limited. P59
76 "Space is commonly regarded as something that is around US and above US, and time is something that flows on forever" (Keshavmurti,1991:1) "Time is the mind of space and space is the body of time" (Keshavmurti,1991:36) "Time is not conceptualized on its own terms, but rather is conceptualized in significant part metaphorically and metonymically" Lakoff&Johnson (1999:137) "Space and time are concepts very tightly interrelated with each other, as Samuel Alexander (1859— 1938) insisted that"space is in its very nature temporal and time Spatial" (Keshavmurti,1991:36)
77 "In our visual systems, we have detectors for motion and detectors for objects/locations. We do not have detectors for time (whatever that could mean).Thus, it makes good biological sense that time should be understood in terms of things and motion." Lakoff (1993:128)
78 Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University press, P128.
79 这里我们将动物身体词语“尾”列入研究范围是为了突出时间隐喻“上——下”和“前——后”的关系。
80 范继花,方位概念“前/后”在汉语中的隐喻运用,北京航空航天大学学报,2006年第1期,68页。
81 陈家旭,英汉喜悦情感隐喻人之对比分析,外语与外语教学,2007年第7期,36贞。
82 we have the very basic experiences of a fluid inside the body; we experience heat or lack of heat in certain parts of the body; we also feel pressure when angry" (Kovecses 2002:98).
83 Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture and body in human feeling. New York:Cambridge University Press.
84 Barcelona, A (Ed).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin,
85 NingYu.2003a. Metaphor, Body, and Culture:The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage. Metaphor and Symbol,13-31.
86 例子和示意图转引自Olga Velasco.Metaphor, Metonymy and Image-Schemas:An Analysis of Conceptual Interaction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. (2001-2),P53.
87 陈家旭,英汉空间隐喻化人之对比,民族论坛2007年第6期,36页
Alice Deignan,《隐喻》,丁建民译,外文出版社,1999年
C.K 奥格登,I.A.理查兹,《意义之意义》,白人立、国庆祝、林书武译,北京师范大学出版社,2000年
E.C.斯坦哈特,《隐喻的逻辑》,黄华新,徐慈华等译,浙江大学出版社,2009年
J.H.弗拉维尔,《认知发展》邓赐平译,华东师范大学出版社,2002年
J·D·麦考莱著,《语言逻辑分析》,王维贤、徐颂列等译,杭州大学出版社1981年
M.W.艾森克、M.T.基恩,《认知心理学》,高定国肖晓云译,华东师范大学出版社,2003年
M.W.瓦托夫斯基,《科学思想的概念基础—科学哲学导论》,张黛年等译,求实出版社,1989年
白解红,多义聚合现象的认知研究,外语与外语教学,2001年12期
白丽芳,“名词+上下“语义结构的对称与不对称性,语言教学与研究,2006年第4期：
柏拉图,《理想国》,郭斌和张竹明译,商务印书馆,1995年版,第393页
保罗·利科,《活的隐喻》,汪堂家译,上海译文出版社,2004年
伯纳德·科姆里著,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊罗天华等译,北京大学出版社,2008年
伯纳德·科姆里著,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊译,华夏出版社,1989年
伯纳德·韦纳著,《人类动机：比喻理论和研究》,孙煜明译,浙江教育出版社,1999年
布莱恩·麦基编,《思想家》周穗明翁寒松译,三联书店,2004年
布莱恩·特纳,《身体与社会》,马海良、张国新译,春风文艺出版社,2000年
曹炜,《现代汉语词义学》,学林出版社,2001年
查尔斯·达尔文著,《人与动物的情感》,翻译余人等,四川人民出版社,1999年
陈平,论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构,中国语文,1998年第6期。
陈平,释汉语中与名词性成分相关的的四组概念,中国语文,1987年第2期。
陈保亚,《语言接触与语言联盟》语文出版社,1996年
陈保亚,《语言接触与语言联盟——汉越(侗台)语源关系得解释》,语文出版社,1996年
陈光磊,《汉语词法论》,学林出版社,1994年
陈光磊、王俊衡：《中国修辞学通史》,吉林教育出版社,1998
陈家旭,汉语基本颜色的范畴化及隐喻化认知,河南师范大学学报,2003年第2期
陈克炯,《“天人合一”与词义引申》,学术月刊,1993,第4期
陈望道,《修辞学发凡》,上海教育出版社,2001年
陈新仁,转喻指称的认知语用阐释,外语学刊,2008年第二期
陈原,《社会语言学》,学林出版社,1983年
程琪龙,《认知语言学概论》,外语教学与研究出版社,2001年
程淑贞,汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究,语文教学与研究,2000年第1期
褚孝泉,《语言哲学·从语言到思想》,上海三联书店出版社,1991年
储泽祥,《汉语的方所概念系统研究》,华中师范大学出版社,1998年
储泽祥、谢晓明,汉语语法化研究中应重视的若干问题,世界汉语教学,2002,第2期
崔希亮,《语言理解与认知》,北京语言文化大学出版社,2001年
戴维·E·库珀,《隐喻》,郭贵春安军译,上海科技教育出版社,2006年
戴耀晶,《“前”的空间意义和时间意义——语言研究的新思路》,上海教育出版社,1998年
戴耀晶,人体词语的引中用法,修辞学习,1992第5期
戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年
丹尼·卡瓦拉罗,《文化理论关键词》,张卫东等译,江苏人民出版社2005年
道尔古,郭志菊,论蒙汉语人体赐予的热点及文化意蕴,内蒙古社会科学2003年2期
董秀芳,《词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展》,四川民族出版社,2002年
恩斯特·卡西尔,《人伦》,甘阳译,上海译文出版社,1985年
恩斯特·马赫,《认识与谬误》,洪佩郁译,东方出版社,2005年
范晓,《三个平面的语法观》,北京语言文化大学出版社,1996年
范金玲、李红,汉语空间方位词“上”与“下”不对称的认知语义分析,外国语言文学研究,2003年
费尔迪南·德·索绪尔,《普通语言学教程》高明凯译,商务印书馆1980年
冯广艺,《汉语比喻研究史》,湖北教育出版社,2002年
冯凌宇,汉语“人体+人体”双音转义词语的意义和结构,湖北大学学报,2007年3期
冯凌宇,汉语人体词语的演变特点,武汉大学学报,2006年9期
符淮青,《词义的分析和描写》,语文出版社,1996年
高守纲,《古代汉语词义通论》,语文出版社,1994年
葛本仪,《现代汉语词汇学》,山东人民出版社,2001年
耿占春,《隐喻》,东方出版社,1993年
龚群虎,人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题,语文研究,1994年4期
古敬恒,《人体词与人的秘密》,团结出版社,2000年
桂诗春,《新编心理语言学》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
汉娜·阿伦特,《精神生活·思维》,姜志辉译江,苏教育出版社,2006年
何金松,《汉字形义考源》,武汉出版社,1996年
何善芬,《英汉语言对比研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年
黑格尔《美学》朱光潜译,商务印书馆1979年
洪堡特,《洪堡特语言哲学文集》,湖南教育出版社,2001年
洪堡特,《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》,姚小平译,商务印书馆,1999年
胡曙中,《英汉修辞比较研究》,上海外语教育出版社,1993年
胡裕树,《现代汉语》,上海教育出版社,1981年。
胡壮麟,《认知语言学》,北京大学出版社,2004年
胡壮麟,语言、认知、隐喻,现代外语,1997年四期
黄华,试比较概念隐喻理论和概念整合理论,外语与外语教学,2001年6期
黄金贵,《古代文化词义集类辨考》,上海教育出版社,1995年
加达默尔,《哲学解释学》,夏镇平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年
贾彦德,《汉语语义学》,北京大学出版社,1999年
贾玉新,《跨文化交际学》,上海外语教育出版社,1997年
蒋绍愚,关于汉语词汇系统及其发展变化的几点想法,中国语文,1989年1期
杰弗里·利奇,《语义学》,李瑞华等译,上海外语教育出版社,1987年
解海江、张志毅,汉语面部语义场历史演变——兼论汉语词汇史研究方法论的转换,古汉语研究,1993年4期
克洛德·列维·斯特劳斯,《野性的思维》,李幼蒸译,中国人民大学出版社2006年
孔多塞著,《人类精神进步史表纲要》,何兆武、何文斌译,三联出版社,1998年
库尔特·考夫卡,《格式塔心理学》,黎炜译,浙江教育出版社,1997年
莱布尼茨,《人类理智新论》,陈修斋译,商务印书馆,1982年
蓝纯,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》(英文本),外语教学与研究出版社,2003年
蓝纯,《认知语言学与隐喻研究》,外语教学与研究出版社,2004年
蓝纯,从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻,外语教学与研究,1999年4期
雷纳特.N.凯恩,《创设联结：教学与人脑》吕林海译,华东师范大学出版社,2004年
李国南,《英汉修辞格对比研究》,福建人民出版社,1999年
李国南,《辞格与词汇》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年
李国正,《古汉语文化探秘》,书海出版社,1998年
李慧贤,试析汉语人体词语隐喻投射现象,内蒙古大学学报,2008年9月,第40卷第5期
李敏生,《汉字哲学初探》社会科学文献出版社,1997年
李瑞华,《英汉语言文化对比研究》,上海外语教育出版社,1996年
李树新,论人体词语的文化意蕴,内蒙古大学学报,2002年9月
李树新,人体词语的认知模式与语义类推,汉字文化,2004年4期
李玄玉,关于人体器官的量词,阜阳师范学院学报,2002年第6期
李玄玉,略论动词+人体词语名词式复合词的定性和定位,安徽警官职业学院学报,2002年第4期
李玄玉,维吾尔语和韩语“手、脚”谚语比较研究,广西教育学院学报,2002年第4期
李瑛,容器图式和容器隐喻,西南民族大学学报,2005年5月,总25卷,第5期
李宇明,《汉语量范畴研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2000年
李宇明,空间在世界认知中的地位,湖北大学学报,1999年第3期
李宇明主,《理论语言学教程》,华中师范大学出版社,2000年
李裕德,《现代汉语词语搭配》,商务印书馆,1998年
廖贵燕,汉英语言中“头”的空间隐喻研究,承德石油高等专科学校学报,2008年3月
廖秋忠,空间方位词和方位参照点,《廖秋忠文集》,北京语言学院出版社,1992年
廖秋忠,现代汉语篇章中空间和时间的参照点,《廖秋忠文集》,1992年
林宝卿,《汉语与中国文化》,科学出版社,2000年
林铭均、曾祥云,《名辩学新探》,中山大学出版社,2000年
林书武,“语言的隐喻基础”评介,外语教学与研究,1996年2月
林书武,国外隐喻研究综述,外语教学与研究,1997年第1期
林书武,塔隐喻与认识,外语教学与研究,1995年第4期
林书武,隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势,外国语,2002年1月
凌云,汉语类比造词初探,汉语教学与研究,1999年第2期
刘爱伦,《思维心理学》,上海教育出版社,2002年
刘大为,《比喻、近喻与自喻》,上海教育出版社,2001年
刘丹青,《语法化与语法研究》,商务印书馆,2005年
刘拐,《文心雕龙》,北京燕山出版社,2001年
刘宁生,汉语怎样表达的空间关系,中国语文,1994年第3期
刘润清,《现代语言学名著选读》,测绘出版社,1988年
刘叔新,《汉语描写词汇学》,商务印书馆,1990年
刘正光,莱柯夫隐喻理论中的缺陷,外语与外语教学,2001年第1期
龙伯纯,《文字发凡》,上海广智书局出版,1905年
卢华岩,由“到”义动词“上、下”构成的动宾组合,语言教学与研究,2001年第3期
卢卫中,人体隐喻化的认知特点,外语教学,2003年地第12期
鲁道夫·卡尔纳普,《世界的逻辑构造》,陈启伟译,上海译文出版社,1999年
陆国强,《现代英语词汇学》,上海外语教育出版社,1983年
陆宗达、王宁,《训话方法论》,中国社会科学出版社,1983年
罗伯特·所罗门,《大问题》,张卜天译,广西师范大学出版社2004年
罗文青,越南语言文字使用的历史回溯,广西民族大学学报,2007年第1期
罗文青,越语双音节汉越词对应汉语倒序现象规律初探,广西民族大学学报,2008年第4期
吕叔湘,方位词使用情况的初步考察,《汉语语法论文集》,商务印书馆,1963年
吕叔湘、马庆株,《语法研究人门》,商务印书馆,1999年
吕叔湘、朱德熙,《语法修辞讲话》,开明书店出版社,1951年
马蒂尼奇,《语言哲学》,牟博等译,商务印书馆,1998年
马清华,《文化语义学》,江西人民出版社,2000年
马清华,词义类扩的相貌知觉倾向,语文研究,1999年第2期
马提索夫,藏面语族语言的研究和展望——马提索夫教授访问记,民族语文,1990年,第1期
倪宝元,《修辞》,浙江人民出版社,1983年
牛保义,《认知语言学经典文献选读》,河南大学出版社,2008年
欧内斯特·内格尔,《科学的结构》,徐向东译,上海译文出版社2005年
潘文国,《汉英语对比纲要》,北京语言大学出版社,1997年
潘文国,对比语言学的目标与范围,外语与外语教学,2006年第1期
潘文国,语言的定义,华东师范大学学报,2001年第1期
潘文国、谭惠敏,《对比语言学：历史与哲学思考》,上海教育出版社,2006年
潘文国、杨自俭,《共性·个性·视角—英汉对比的理论与方法研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2008年
彭增安,《隐喻研究的新视角》,山东文艺出版社,2006年
彭增安,隐喻的作用机制,修辞学习,1998年第5期
齐沪扬,《现代汉语空间问题研究》,学林出版社,1998年,37-38页
齐振海,论“心“的隐喻——基于汉、英语料库对比研究,外语研究,2003年第3期
钱冠连,《语言-人类最后的家园》,商务印书馆2005年
钱进,说“脚”构词语系列及其文化内涵,语文学刊,1996年第5期
任继愈,《中国哲学史论》,上海人民出版社1981年
任学良,《古汉语常用词订正》,浙江大学出版社,1987年
阮江灵,重新认知汉语借词在越南语中的地位和作用,民族语文,2001年第1期。
萨丕尔,《语言论》,陆卓元译,商务印书馆,2000年
邵敬敏,《汉语语法的立体研究》,商务印书馆,2000年
沈家煊,“语法化”研究综观,外语教学与研究,1994年第4期
沈家煊,《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社,1999年
沈家煊,《沈家煊卷》,安徽教育出版社,2002年
沈家煊,实词虚化机制,当代语言学,1998年第3期
沈家煊,转指和转喻,当代语言学,1999年第1期
石毓智、李讷所,《汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制》,北京大学出版社,2001年
史锡尧,“口”、“嘴”语义语用分析,汉语学习,1994年第1期
史锡尧,“心”族词语语义语用考察,中国语文,1994第3期
束定芳,《现代语义学》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,论隐喻的基本类型及句法和语义特征,外国语,2000年第1期
宋永培,《“说文”与上古汉语词义研究》,巴蜀书社,2001年
苏宝荣,《词义研究与辞书释义》,商务印书馆,2000年
苏宝荣、宋永培,《古汉语词义简论》,河北教育出版社,1987年
苏晓军,概念整合理论的认知力,外国语,2001年第3期
苏新春,《汉语词义学》,广东教育出版社,1997年
苏新春,《文化的结晶—词义》,吉林教育出版社,1994年
孙良明,《词义与释义》,湖北人民出版社,1982年
孙玉文,《汉语变调构词研究》,北京大学出版社,2000年
汤川秀树,《创造力和直觉》,周林东译,复旦大学出版社,1987年
汤志祥,《当代汉语词语的共时状况及其擅变》,复旦大学出版社,2001年
汪少华,合成空间理论对隐喻的阐释力,外国语,2001年第3期
王艾录、司富珍,《汉语的语词理据》,商务印书馆,2001年
王德春,《词汇学研究》,山东教育出版社,1983年
王珏, 《汉语生命范畴初论》,华东师范大学出版社,2004年
王珏,《现代汉语名词研究》,华东师范大学出版社,2001年
王力,《汉语史稿》,中华书局,1980年
王力,《谈谈学习古代汉语》,山东教育出版社,1984年
王力,《中国语法理论》中华书局,1954年
王敏,英汉人体词语认知对比研究,荆门职业技术学院学报,2005年第2期
王宁,训话学与汉语双音词的结构和意义,语言教学与研究,1997年第4期
王希杰,《修辞学通论》,南京大学出版社,1996年
王希杰,借代的定义和范围及本质,毕节师范高等专科学校学报,2004年第2期
王寅,Lakof和Johnson的体验哲学,当代语言学,2002年第2期,
王寅,认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学,外语教学与研究,2002年第2期,
王寅,中西隐喻对比及隐喻工作机制分析,解放军外国语学院学报,2003年,第2期
王作新,《汉字结构系统与传统思维方式》,武汉出版社,1999年
维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社,2001年.
吴恩锋,论汉语“心”认知系统,语言教学与研究,2004年第6期
吴静,空间隐喻的英汉对比研究,山东外语教学,2001年第3期
吴平,《英汉修辞手段比较》,安徽教育出版社,2001.
武占坤、王勤,《现代汉语词汇概要》,内蒙古人民出版社,1983年
萧国政,《汉语语法研究论》,华中师范大学出版社,2001年
邢福义,《文化语言学》,湖北教育出版社,2000年
邢福义,《现代汉语语法修辞专题》,高等教育出版社,2002年。
熊文华,《汉英应用对比概论》,上海外语教育出版社,1997年
徐国庆,《现代汉语词汇系统论》,北京大学出版社,1999年
徐时仪,《古白话词汇研究论稿》,上海教育出版社,2000年
许晋,人体词语转类用法的文化语言学考察,语言学理论与研究,2006年第4期
许威汉,《20世纪的汉语词汇学》,山西人民出版社,2000年
许余龙,《对比语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,1992年
亚里斯多德,《修辞学》,三联书店出版社,1991年
杨合鸣,《古今语法差异》,社会科学文献出版社,1996年
杨君,论隐喻的认知作用,修辞学习,1996年第2期
杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译3》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译4》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年
伊莉曼.艾孜买提,《汉语和日语中人体词语之文化联想》,新疆师范大学学报,2003年第4期
殷寄明,《语源学概论》,上海教育出版社,2001年
英海尔德,《学习与认知发展》,华东师范大学出版社,2001年
应雨田,比喻型词语的类型及释义,中国语文,1993年第4期
袁晖、戴耀晶编,《三个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野》,语文出版社,1998年
袁晖、宗廷虎,《汉语修辞学史》,山西人民出版杜,1995年
袁毓林,比喻结构的转换生成研究初探,杭州大学学报,1986年第一期
袁毓林,一价名词的认知研究,中国语文,1994年第4期
约翰·塞尔,《心灵、语言与社会》李步楼译,上海译文出版社,2001年
臧克和,《说文解字的文化说解》,湖北人民出版社,1992年
詹人凤,《现代汉语语义学》,商务印书馆,1997年
张斌主编,范开泰、张亚军,《现代汉语语法分析》,华东师范大学出版社,2000
张德鑫,《中外语言文化漫谈》,华语教学出版社,1996年
张敏,《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》,中国社会科学出版社,1998年
张维鼎,《语言文化纵论》,四川辞书出版社,2002年
张永言,《词汇学简论》,华中工学院出版社,1982年
张志公,《现代汉语》,人民教育出版社,1986年
张志毅,汉语“面”部语义场的历史演变,古汉语研究,1994年第3期
张志毅,张庆云,《词汇语义学》,商务印书馆,2001年
赵克勤,《古代汉语词汇学》,商务印书馆,1994年
赵沛霖,《兴的起源—历史积淀与诗歌艺术》,中国社会科学出版社,1987年
赵世开,《汉英对比语法论文集》,上海外语教育出版社,1999年
赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年
赵艳芳,语言结构的空间性,外语论坛,2003年第4期
赵永新,反映人体器官的词语及其文化因素,语言文字应用,1993年第2期
赵玉兰编, 《越汉翻译教程》,北京大学出版社,2002年。
郑远汉,《言语风格学》,湖北人民出版社,1998年第2版
郑子瑜、宗廷虎等：《中国修辞学通史》,吉林教育出版社,1998
中国社会科学院历史研究所, 《古代中越关系史资料选编》,中国社会科学出版社1981年
钟守满,颜色词的语义认知和语义结构,外语教学,2001年第四期,
周光庆,汉语词义引申中的文化心理,华中师范大学学报,1992年第5期
周光庆、杨合鸣主编《古代汉语教程》,华中师范大学出版社,2001年
周榕,时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究,心理科学,2000年第2期
周榕,隐喻认知基础的心理现实性,外语教学与研究,2001年第2期
朱文俊,《人类语言学论题研究》,北京语言文化大学出版社,2000年
朱晓军,从“空间”语义特征看空间问题新研究,民族论坛,2007年第6期
朱晓军,认知语言学视角下的汉语个体量词搭配,语言与翻译,2006年第4期
朱星《汉语词义简析》,湖北人民出版社,1981年
祝敏彻,《近代汉语句法史稿》中州古籍出版社,1996年
宗廷虎,《中国现代修辞学史》,浙江教育出版社,1990年
梅家驹,竺一鸣,高蕴琦,殷鸿翔编《同义词词林》,上海辞书出版社,1983年
朱晓红,从认知角度看“上”和“下”的方位性隐喻,安徽工业大学学报,2004年第6期
张谊生《现代汉语虚词研究》,华东师范大学出版社,2000年
《现代汉语大词典》,汉语大词典出版社,2000年
《现代汉语词典》商务印书馆,2005年
《应用汉语词典》,商务印书馆,2000年
《现代汉语分类词典》,董大年,汉语大词典出版社,1998年
《汉语正序倒序多用词典》,四川人民出版社,2001年
《越语大词典》(Dai tir dien Tieng Viet),胡志明市国家大学出版社,2007年
《汉越词和短语词典》(Tir dien tir va ngu Han Viet)胡志明市出版社,1989年
《牛津简明英语词典》(The Concise Oxford Dictionary),牛津大学出版社,外语教学与研究出版社,2000年
《牛津英汉双解词典》(Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary),外语教学与研究出版社,1992年
《中国大百科全书》,中国大百科全书出版社,1996年
陈丽丽,《现代汉语器官名词内部特征与外部表现》,华东师范大学硕士论文,2008年
崔新广,《汉日面部语义场的对比研究》,山东烟台师范学院硕士论文 2000年
李刚,《从认知角度研究汉英语中的身体隐喻》河北师范大学硕士论文,2009年
李文莉,《人体隐喻系统研究》,华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年
李研,《现代汉语人体近义名词分布研究》,华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2010年
吕晓娟,《从人治的角度分析英汉空间隐喻》,西北工业大学硕士学位论文,2001年
满欣,《汉语内脏器官词语意义分析》,广西师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年
杨晓燕,《汉英人体词汇对比研究》,云南师范大学硕士学位论文,2009年
叶皖林,《现代汉语人体方所表达形式研究》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文,2001年
周毕吉,《现代汉语人体名词的多角度研究》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2006年
朱学岚,《人体词语的语义、语用考察》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文,2001年
蔡永强,《汉语方位词及其概念隐喻系统》,北京语言大学博士学位论文,2008年
陈家旭,《英汉隐喻认知对比研究》,华东师范大学博士学位论文,2006年
冯凌宇《汉语人体词语研究》,武汉大学博士学位论文,2003年
付宁,《语法化视角下的现代汉语单音方位词研究》,山东大学博士学位论文,2009年
何爱晶《名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习》,西南大学博士论文,2009年
黄碧蓉,《人体词语义研究》,上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2009年
李金兰,《现代汉语身体动词的认知研究》,华东师范大学博士学位论文,2006年
李静熹,《现代汉语方位词研究》,上海师范大学博士学位论文,2000年
王冬梅,《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001年
文雅丽,《现代汉语心理动词研究》,北京语言大学博士学位论文,2007年
吴云,《汉语空间隐喻专题研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2002年
赵倩,《汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因》,北京语言大学,2007年
朱晓军《空间范畴的认知语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文,2008年
Akhundov, Murad D.1986.Conceptions of space and time.Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press
Allbritton, D.1995.When Metaphors Functions as Schemas:Some Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol,10 (1),33-46
Allbritton, D.McKoon &Gerrig, R1995. Metaphor-based schemas and text representations:Making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition.21 (3).612-625
Boroditsky, L.1999. First-language thinking for second-language understanding: Mandarin and English speakers'conceptions of time. Proceeding of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, BC.
Brown, Theodore L.2003:Making Truth. Metaphor in Science, Urbana & Chicago.
Bryan.S.Turner 1996. The body and society:Explorations in social theory. London: Sage Publications.
Casasanto, Daniel.2004. How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish.in: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.
Clark, H.H.1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, New York:Academic Press.
Danica Skara.2004.Body Metaphors-Reading the Body in Contemporary Culture.Coll, Antropol.28
Darwin.C.1872. The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Reprinted, New York:Philosophical Library,1998
Darwin.C.1998.3rd with Introduction, Afterword and Commentary by Paul Ekman: London:Happer Collins; New York:Oxford University Press.
Daugherty, P.S.1997. Body, Mind and Metaphor:the Worldview of Yoruk Women of the Central Taurus Mountains of Turkey. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Dedre Gentner, Mutsumi Imai, and Lera Boroditsky. As time goes by:Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes,17 (5),537-565
Dirven Ren and Wolf Paprott The Ubiquity of Metaphor:Metaphor in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing House.
Ekman P.1992b. Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review.99,550-553.
Ekman, P.1984. Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds).Approaches to Emotion. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, pp.319-344.
Ekman, P.1993. Facial expression of emotion. American Psychologist.48,384-392.
Ekman, P.1977. Biological and cultural contributions to body and facial movement. In.Blacking (ed.). Anthropology of the Body, London:Academic Press, pp. 34-84.
Eric Charles Steinhart.2001. The Logic of Metaphor:Analogous Parts of Possible Worlds. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Evans, V.2003. The Structure of Time:Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam:
Fauconniek Gilles.1998. Mental Spaces, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Fauconniek Gilles.1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C J; Atkins, BT S.2000. Describing polysemy:The case of "crawl"". In Leacock, C. Polysemy:Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.91-110. p.100
Frye Northrop,1985, A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.Cambridge. Mass:MIT Press
Frye Northrop.1985. The Harper Handbook to literature. New York
Geeraerts, Dirk.2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (red.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast 435-465. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentner, D.,& Wolff, P.1997. Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language,37 (3),331-355.
Gentner, D.1983. Structure—Mapping:A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155-170.
Gibbs Raymond W. (ed.) 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gibbs, R.1989. The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought,Language and Understanding. Cambridge:C.U.P.
Gibbs, R. W.1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition,61,309-319.
Gibbs, R.W.2002. Bodily Action and Metaphorical Comprehension. Style 36,524- 540.
Gibbs, R.W.Jr.& Steen, G.J. (ed.) 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goatly, A.1997. The Language of Metaphors. London and NewYork:Routledge.
Goossens, L.1995. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expression for Linguistic Action. In Goosens, L.et.al (eds) By Word of Mouth. Metaphor and Metonymy and Linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Grigg, Russell.2008. Lacan, language, and philosophy, chapter 11 Lacan and Jakobson-Metaphor and Metonymy pp.151-2,160
Harraway, Donna.1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto:Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." In Simians, Cyborgs and Women:The Reinvention of Nature. New York:Routlage:149-181.
Hawks, Terence. Metaphor. Chicago:University Press,1972
Hebdige, D.1979. Subculture:The Meaning of Style. New York:Metheun.
Heine Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press
Honeck.P. Richard and Robert R. Hoffman 1980 Cognition and FigurativeLanguage, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
Humboldt, Wilhelm von.1988. On Language:The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in Mind:The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark.1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics 3-4.
Josita Maouene, Shohei Hidaka, Linda.B.Smith.2008. Body-parts and Early-learned Verbs.Cognitive Science 32
Juliana Goschler.2005. Embodiment and Body Metaphors. Metaphorik.de.
Karl.J.Franklin.2003. Some Kewa Metaphors:Body parts as Automobile Parts. SIL Electronic Working Papers.
Kelly, E.M.1992. The Metaphorical Basis of Language:A Study in Cross-Cultural Linguistics, or, The Left-handed Hummingbird. Mellen Press.
Keshavmurti.1991. Space and Time. New Delhi:Sterling Publishers
Kittay, E.1987. Metaphor:its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture and body in human feeling. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kroeber & Clyde Kluckhohn 1952.CULTURE:A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Vintage Books.New York
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George& Johnson, Mark.1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought, New York. Basic Books.
Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G& Johnson. Mark. Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 77, Issue 8,1980 (453-486)
Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University press
Lakoff, G..1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guid to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press. P99
Landa, A.1996. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish. Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Conception
Lera Boroditsky.2000. Metaphoric structuring:understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75,1-28.
Lera Boroditsky.2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology,43/1,1-22.
Lyons, John 1977. "Deixis, space and time" in Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Machamer, Peter.2000. The nature of metaphor and scientific description. Hallyn, Fernand (ed.):Metaphor and Analogy in the Sciences, Dordrecht,35-52.
Matisoff, J. A.1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman. Philadelphia:Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Inc.
Matisoff, J.A.1986. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: An Essay in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations. Cahiers de linguistique-Asie orientale, vol.15 n°1,1986. pp.5-57
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition,60 (2),173-204.
Ning Yu.1998. The contemporary Theory of Metaphor:A Perspective from Chinese. John Benjamin Publishing Company.1998:85.
NingYu.2000. Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol 15 (3) 159-175.
NingYu..2007.Heart and Cognition in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7
NingYu.1995. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2),59-92
NingYu.2001. What does our face mean to us. Pragmatic&Cognition.9:1
NingYu.2002. Body and emotion:Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Pragmatic&Cognition 10:1/2
NingYu.2003. Chinese metaphor of Thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14-2/3
NingYu.2003a. Metaphor, Body, and Culture:The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage. METAPHOR AND SYMBOL,18(1),13-31.
NingYu.2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatic (6)
O'Neill, John.1985. Five Bodies:The Human Shape of Modern Society. Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Oey, M.E.1990. Psycho-collocation in Malay: A South-East Areal Feature. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13 (1)
Ortony Andrew 1979 Metaphor and Thought and Edition, Cambridge University Press..
Pinker, Steven.1999. Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language, London.
Reddy, Michael.1979. The Conduit Metaphor: a Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language, in A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought.. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Riemer, N.2001. Remetonymizing metaphor:Hypercategories in semantic extension. In Cognitive Linguistics 12
Richards. I. A.1936/1950. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford UP
Robert.E.MacLaury.1989 Zapotec body-part locatives:Prototypes and metaphoric extentions. University of Chicago press.
Roediger, Henry L.1980. Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. in:Memory and Cognition 8,231-246.
Rohrer, Tim.2006. Image Schemata in the Brain. in Beate Hampe (ed.) From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin
Roman Jakobson and Halle, Morris.1956.Two Aspects of Language and Two types Aphasic Disturbances in Fundamentals of Language.The Hague & Paris: Mouton, section The Metaphoric and Metonymy Poles.
Ronald W. Langacker 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press
Rosenberg.E.L&Ekman.P.1994. Coherence between expressive and experiential systems in emotion.Cognitive and Emotion.8.201-229
Rubal, E.R.1994. Metaphors of the Body. M.A Thesis. California State University.
Rubin, E.2001. Figure and Ground. In Yantis, S. (Ed.), Visual Perception. (pp. 225-229).Philadelphia, Psychology Press
Rudolf Arnheim.1969 Visual Thinking. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Sakuragi, Toshiyuki and Judith W. Fuller,2003. Body-Part Metaphors:A Cross-Cultural Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,32 (4)
Searle, John R.1984. Minds, brains and science, Cambridge.
Spender, Dale.1991. Man Made Language. London:Pandora Press.
Sperber. D & Wilson.1996. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell,2 edition, Oxford
Suzuki, T.1984. Words in Context:A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture.New York:Condansha International.
Talmy Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambrigde& London:The MIT press.
Taylor, John R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press Teaching and Research Press
Toshiyuki Sakuragi&Judith W.Fuller.2003. Body-Part Metaphors:A Cross-Culture Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol 32, No 4.
Tversky, A.1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review,84,327-352
Ullmann, Stephen.1962.Semantic:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell
Ungerer & H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Addison Weslep Longman Limited
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam:Benjamins,1999
Bui Khac Viet,1987, Ve nhom tu chi bo phan ca the nguoi trong tieng Viet:Nhung van de Ngon ngu hoc cac ngon nguphuong Dong. NXB Khoa hoc xa hoi
Cao Xuan Hao,2003. Tieng Viet-Vdn Viet-Nguoi Viet, NXB Tre
Dinh Trong Lac.1999.99 cach tu tu trong tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Do Hoang Ngan, Mot so nhan xet ve thanh ngu co tu chi bo phan ca the nguoi trong Tieng Nhat. Tap chi ngon ngu, so 8,2002
Do Huu Chau,1999. Tu vung ngu nghia tieng Viet, NXB Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Hoang Tho Huyen. Nghia bieu trung qua mot so ten goi bo phan con nguoi trong tieng Anh. Tap chi Ngon Ngu hoc tre,1999-8
Ky yeu Hoi thao Khoa hoc "Tieng Viet va Van hoa Viet Nam cho nguoi nuoc ngoai 2001.Dac trung van hoa dan toc the hien trong thanh ngu tieng Viet co tu chi bo phan co the ngudi. Nxb Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Ngo Minh Thuy. Con mat trong thanh ngu tieng Nhat, Tap chi Ngon Ngu va Doi song 2005-8
Nguyen Duc Ton.2002. Tim hieu dac trung van hoa-dan toc cua ngon ngu va tu duy o nguoi Viet (trong su so sanh voi nhung dan toc khac). NXB Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Nguyen Duc Ton. Ngu nghia cac tic chi bo phan co the nguoi trong tieng Viet va tieng Nga, Tap chi Ngon Ngu va Doi song 2005-08
Nguyen Duc Ton. Ten goi bo phan ca the trong tieng Viet voi viec bieu trung tam ly tinh cam. Tap chi Van Hoa dan gian,1994-03
Nguyen Duc Ton. Tim hieu dac trung van hoa dan toc cua ten goi dan gian. Tap chi Van Hoa dan gian,1997-4
Nguyen Kim Than.1963. Nghien cuu ve nguphap tieng Viet. NXB Khoa Hoc
Nguyen Ngoc Them 1999. Ca so van hoa Viet Nam, NXB Giao Duc
Nguyen Ngoc Vu, An du y niem bo phan ca the la vat chua dung trong thanh ngir tieng Anh, Ngu hoc tre,2008-3
Nguyen Ngoc Vu.2008. Thanh ngu tieng Anh va thanh ngu tieng Viet co yeu to chi bo phdn ca the nguoi duoi goc nhin cua ngon ngu hoc tri nhan, Luan an tien sy ngu van, DH Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi va Nhan Van
Nguyen Tai Can 1979. Nguon goc va qua trinh hinh thanh cach doc Han-Viet. NXB Khoa hoc xa hoi, Ha Noi
Nguyen Thi Huong. Dac trung ngu nghia cua bo phan tuc ngu co chua tu tro bo phan ca the nguoi. Ngu hoc tre,1999-2
Nguyen Thi Thu. Su chuyen nghia cua tu TAY trong tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre 2002
Nguyen Thi Thu. Thanh ngu tieng Viet co tic chi "tay" "chdn" voi dac trung van hoa dan toe". Ngon Ngu va Doi song.2006-3
Nguyen Thi Trung Thanh. Ve cac tic ghep dang lap hinh thanh cdc tu don chi bo phdn ca the.Ngon ngu va dai song 2001-9
Nguyen Thien Giap.1998. Tu vung hoc Tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Nguyen Trong Khanh.Buoc dau doi chieu dac diem ten goi cac bo phdn ca the con nguoi trong tieng Lao voi Tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre.1998-3
Nguyen Trong Khanh. Su chuyen nghia cua cac tic chi bo phdn ca the con nguai trong tieng Lao.Tap chi Ngon ngu 1998-6
Nguyen Van Khang 2007. Tic ngoai lai trong tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Nguyen Van Khang. Su bien doi ve ngu nghia duoi tac dong cua cac nhan to ngon ngu-xa hoi. Tap chi Ngon Ngu hoc 2004-4.
Nguyen Van Na. Bieu trung cua cac tu chi bo phdn ca the trong tuc ngu Viet Nam. Ngu hoc tre 2005-3
Pham Thi Hoa. Hien tuang nhieu nghia cua cac tu chi bo phan ca the nguai trong tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre 2002-6
Phan Hong Xuan. Ca che chuyen nghia theo phuang thuc an du cua tu chi bo phdn ca the nguoi. Ngon ngu 1999-5
Phan Ngoc.1991. Meo giai nghia cac tic Han Viet, NXB Thanh ph6 H6 Chi Minh
Phan Thi Hong Xuan. Ca che chuyen nghia theo phuang thuc an du cua tie chi bo phan ca the nguai trong tieng viet. Ngu hoc tre 1999-1
Ta Duc Tu. Mot so thanh ngu co tic BUNG. Ngon Ngu va doi song.2005-3
Trinh Duc Hien. Nhung tu ghep co tu to chi bo phan ca the trong tieng Viet. Ngon Ngu va doi song 2007-8
Trinh Duc Hien Cdu truc hai bac trong ngu nghia cua thanh ngu co tu chi bo phan ca the.Van hoa Dan gian.2003-5
Trinh Thi Thanh Hue. Buoc ddu nghien cu hien tuang an du bo phan ca the nguai tu goc do ngon ngu hoc tri nhan. Ngu hoc tre 2008-2
Vu Duc Nghieu. Nhung don vi tie vung bieu thi tam ly, y chi, tinh cam co yeu to chi bo phan co the nguoi trong tieng Viet. Tap chi Khoa hoc DHQGHN, Khoa hoc Xa hoi va Nhan van 2007-23:156-163
③《现代汉语词典》商务印书馆,2005年1208页
④恩斯特·卡西尔,《人伦》,甘阳译,上海译文出版社,1985年140页
⑤Lakoff,G.& Johnson, M.1980.Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:Universily of Chicago Press. P3.
⑥束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年29页
⑧Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. P3
⑨Richards. I. A.1065. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford University Press. P119
⑩《中国大百科全书.心理学》,中国大百科全书出版社1991,193页
11 An image schema is "a recurrent pattern, shape, and regularity in, or of, these ongoing ordering activities. These patterns emerge as meaningful structures for us chiefly at the level of our bodily movements through space, our manipulation of objects, and our perceptual interactions".
12Spatial motion group(Containment;Path;Source-Path-Goal;Blockage;Center-Periphery; Cycle;Cyclic Climax):Force Group(Compulsion;Counterforce;Diversion:Removal of Restraint；Enablement；Attraction；Link;Scale);Balance Group(Axis Balance;Point Balance; Twin-Pan Balance;Equilibrium)
14 我们之所以介绍概念转喻的理论,因为“隐喻,,一词通常被视为“隐喻、转喻和隐转喻,,等概念的总称。再者,转喻和隐喻之间有着密切的互动关系。许多语言表达中,隐喻和转喻似乎团成一体,形成隐转喻现象。因此,运用概念隐喻和概念转喻理论进行研究可对语言现象提出更透彻、更全面的认知解释。
15 王冬梅,《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001年,13页。
21 The metaphoric is base upon substitution and similarity, the metonymic upon predication, contexture and contiguity...The realtion of similarity is suppressed in the former, the relation of contiguity in the latter type of aphasia. Metaphor is alien to the similarity disorder, and metonymy to the contiguity disorder. (Roman 1956:41-42)
22 Metaphor and metonymy are different kinds of processes. Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding. Metonymy, on the other hand, has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand for another. (Lakoff 1980:36)
23 示意图转引自Olga Velasco. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Image-Schemas:An Analysis of Conceptual Interaction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. Volume 3 (2001-2) P50.
24 "In actuality we feel that no metaphor can ever be comprehended or even adequately represented independently of its experiential basis" (Lakoff & Johnson,1980:19)
25 "experiential gestalts which are based on the nature or our bodies, our interactions with our physical environment and our interactions with other people within our culture. These experiential gestalts serve as the grounding of conceptual metaphors" (Lakoff & Johnson 1980:117)
26 The ability to use the human body as a structural template to understand and describe other objects can be assumed to be universal; hence, we may expect this to be reflected in all languages". Heine (1997: 143)
27 The choice of these body-part metaphors and those that refer to our physical environment comes from this cognitive view that language structure "is the product of our interaction with the world around us " (Heine 1997:3)
28 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年59页
29 黑格尔《美学》朱光潜译,商务印书馆 1979年31-32页
30 戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年26页
31 Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. P22.
32 王德春,《词汇学研究》,山东教育出版社,1983年88页
34 马提索夫,藏面语族语言的研究和展望——马提索夫教授访问记,民族语文,1990年,第1期7页。
35 Polysemy means that "each text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings" (Hebdige 1979:117)
36 The main point concerning polysemy is that is "arises from the fact that there are systematic relationships between different cognitive models and between elements of the same model. The same word is often used for elements that stand in such cognitive relations for one another" (Lakoff 1987::13)
Polysemy is the norm for lexical units and must therefore be accommodated by linguistic theory as a natural, unproblematic phenomenon (Langacker 1988:50)
38 Richards. I. A.1936/1950. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford UP, P345
39 白解红,《多义聚合现象的认知研究》外语与外语教学,2001年12期9页。
40 因汉越人体同称名词不对应,如汉语的“眼/目”、“牙/齿”、“脸/面”、等,相对应的越南用"mat" "rang"、"mat"等；或越南语的"than/minh"、"mong/dit"、"long/ruot",相对应的汉语用“身”、“臀”、“肠”,导致41个越南语的部位名词相对应的汉语有46个。
43 何爱晶 《名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习》,西南大学博士论文,2009年110页
46 Lakoff.G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind Chicago:University of Chicago Press.P177
47 沈家煊《转指和转喻》当代语言学,1999年第1期4页
48 沈家煊,《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社,1999年7页
49 王力,《中国语法理论》中华书局,1954年32页。
50 Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge P207
51 《中国大百科全书.心理学》,中国大百科全书出版社,1991版,193页。
52 倪宝元,《修辞》,浙江人民出版社,1983年216页
53 Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark.1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought, New York. Basic Books P199.
54 意大利哲学家维柯曾指出：“值得注意的是在一切语种里大部分涉及无生命的表达方式都用人体及其各部分以及用人的感觉和情欲的隐喻来形成的”(李国南；2001：102)；泰勒(1958)说史前人类无法区分自然物和超自然物。在他们的世界里,所有的东西都是人类化的。(Panther; Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden,1999:45)； “在这个世界上,人类总是优先于非人类,事物的观察总是主观性优先于客观性,具体的事物往往比抽象事物更为显著,与人们接触的事物总比不接触的更显著,功能性的事物比无功能性的事物显得更为重要”
Heine Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford University Press. P40.
56 张敏,《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》,中国社会科学出版社,1998年41页。
57 卢卫中,人体隐喻化的认知特点,外语教学,2003年地第12期
58 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年105页。
59 同上,115-116页
60 戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年26页
61Lakoff &Johnson concluded that spatial metaphors have the following characteristics:
1. Most of our fundamental concepts are organized in terms of one or more spatial metaphors.
2. There is all internal systematicity to each spatial metaphor.
3. There is an overall external systematicity among the Various spatial metaphors, which defines coherence among them.
4. Spatial metaphors are rooted in physical and cultural experiences; they are not randomly assigned.
5. In many cases spatialization is so essential a part of a concept that it is difficult for us to imagine any alternative metaphor that lnigbt structure the concept.
6, Our physical and cultural experience provides us many possible bases for spatial metaphors. Which ones are chosen, and which ones are major, may vary from culture to cultlffe.
62 Lakoff & Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guid to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press. P99
63 赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年73页。
64 赵元任(1979：279)方位词的结合面一般都很宽,(这是尽管它是黏着的,我们还是把它看作是一个此类的主要理由),但一对反义的方位词的结合面常常不相等,“上”和“里”比“下”和“外”。
65 崔希亮(2001：172-187)现代汉语的方位词中,使用频率最高、表达功能最多的方位词有三个“上”、“下”、“里”(中)。它们与介词配合,除了表达基本的空间方位关系以外还能表达范围、方面和条件等。
66 付宁,《语法化视角下的现代汉语单音方位词研究》,2009年,山东大学博士学位论文34页
67 李文莉《人体隐喻系统研究》,华东师范大学2007年硕士学位论文,75页
68 Lyons, John (1977) "Deixis, space and time" in Semantics, Cambridge University Press. P 690
69 Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. P376
70 朱晓军《空间范畴的认知语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文,2008年,129页
71 “空间范围的形状可分成“点、线、面、体”四种类型,其中“点”是把物体所处的位置看作是一个点,不考虑位置在长、宽、高三个维度上的特征；“线”是把物体所处的位置看作一条线,即只考虑这个位置在长度上的特征而不考虑其在宽度和高度上的特征；“面”是把物体所处的位置看作为一个表面,只考虑这个位置在长度和宽度上的特征,而不考虑其在高度上的特征,“体”则表示物体三维空间的语言范畴”(齐沪扬,1998：38)
72 转引自朱晓军,《空间范畴语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文2008年,第130页
73 刘丹青,《语法化与语法研究》,商务印书馆,2005年,141页
74 We are physical being, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Thus we view them as containers with an inside and an outside. (Lakoff 1980:29)
75Ungerer.F & H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Addison Weslep Longman Limited. P59
76 "Space is commonly regarded as something that is around US and above US, and time is something that flows on forever" (Keshavmurti,1991:1) "Time is the mind of space and space is the body of time" (Keshavmurti,1991:36) "Time is not conceptualized on its own terms, but rather is conceptualized in significant part metaphorically and metonymically" Lakoff&Johnson (1999:137) "Space and time are concepts very tightly interrelated with each other, as Samuel Alexander (1859— 1938) insisted that"space is in its very nature temporal and time Spatial" (Keshavmurti,1991:36)
77 "In our visual systems, we have detectors for motion and detectors for objects/locations. We do not have detectors for time (whatever that could mean).Thus, it makes good biological sense that time should be understood in terms of things and motion." Lakoff (1993:128)
78 Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University press, P128.
79 这里我们将动物身体词语“尾”列入研究范围是为了突出时间隐喻“上——下”和“前——后”的关系。
80 范继花,方位概念“前/后”在汉语中的隐喻运用,北京航空航天大学学报,2006年第1期,68页。
81 陈家旭,英汉喜悦情感隐喻人之对比分析,外语与外语教学,2007年第7期,36贞。
82 we have the very basic experiences of a fluid inside the body; we experience heat or lack of heat in certain parts of the body; we also feel pressure when angry" (Kovecses 2002:98).
83 Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture and body in human feeling. New York:Cambridge University Press.
84 Barcelona, A (Ed).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin,
85 NingYu.2003a. Metaphor, Body, and Culture:The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage. Metaphor and Symbol,13-31.
86 例子和示意图转引自Olga Velasco.Metaphor, Metonymy and Image-Schemas:An Analysis of Conceptual Interaction Patterns. Journal of English Studies. (2001-2),P53.
87 陈家旭,英汉空间隐喻化人之对比,民族论坛2007年第6期,36页
Alice Deignan,《隐喻》,丁建民译,外文出版社,1999年
C.K 奥格登,I.A.理查兹,《意义之意义》,白人立、国庆祝、林书武译,北京师范大学出版社,2000年
E.C.斯坦哈特,《隐喻的逻辑》,黄华新,徐慈华等译,浙江大学出版社,2009年
J.H.弗拉维尔,《认知发展》邓赐平译,华东师范大学出版社,2002年
J·D·麦考莱著,《语言逻辑分析》,王维贤、徐颂列等译,杭州大学出版社1981年
M.W.艾森克、M.T.基恩,《认知心理学》,高定国肖晓云译,华东师范大学出版社,2003年
M.W.瓦托夫斯基,《科学思想的概念基础—科学哲学导论》,张黛年等译,求实出版社,1989年
白解红,多义聚合现象的认知研究,外语与外语教学,2001年12期
白丽芳,“名词+上下“语义结构的对称与不对称性,语言教学与研究,2006年第4期：
柏拉图,《理想国》,郭斌和张竹明译,商务印书馆,1995年版,第393页
保罗·利科,《活的隐喻》,汪堂家译,上海译文出版社,2004年
伯纳德·科姆里著,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊罗天华等译,北京大学出版社,2008年
伯纳德·科姆里著,《语言共性和语言类型》,沈家煊译,华夏出版社,1989年
伯纳德·韦纳著,《人类动机：比喻理论和研究》,孙煜明译,浙江教育出版社,1999年
布莱恩·麦基编,《思想家》周穗明翁寒松译,三联书店,2004年
布莱恩·特纳,《身体与社会》,马海良、张国新译,春风文艺出版社,2000年
曹炜,《现代汉语词义学》,学林出版社,2001年
查尔斯·达尔文著,《人与动物的情感》,翻译余人等,四川人民出版社,1999年
陈平,论现代汉语时间系统的三元结构,中国语文,1998年第6期。
陈平,释汉语中与名词性成分相关的的四组概念,中国语文,1987年第2期。
陈保亚,《语言接触与语言联盟》语文出版社,1996年
陈保亚,《语言接触与语言联盟——汉越(侗台)语源关系得解释》,语文出版社,1996年
陈光磊,《汉语词法论》,学林出版社,1994年
陈光磊、王俊衡：《中国修辞学通史》,吉林教育出版社,1998
陈家旭,汉语基本颜色的范畴化及隐喻化认知,河南师范大学学报,2003年第2期
陈克炯,《“天人合一”与词义引申》,学术月刊,1993,第4期
陈望道,《修辞学发凡》,上海教育出版社,2001年
陈新仁,转喻指称的认知语用阐释,外语学刊,2008年第二期
陈原,《社会语言学》,学林出版社,1983年
程琪龙,《认知语言学概论》,外语教学与研究出版社,2001年
程淑贞,汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究,语文教学与研究,2000年第1期
褚孝泉,《语言哲学·从语言到思想》,上海三联书店出版社,1991年
储泽祥,《汉语的方所概念系统研究》,华中师范大学出版社,1998年
储泽祥、谢晓明,汉语语法化研究中应重视的若干问题,世界汉语教学,2002,第2期
崔希亮,《语言理解与认知》,北京语言文化大学出版社,2001年
戴维·E·库珀,《隐喻》,郭贵春安军译,上海科技教育出版社,2006年
戴耀晶,《“前”的空间意义和时间意义——语言研究的新思路》,上海教育出版社,1998年
戴耀晶,人体词语的引中用法,修辞学习,1992第5期
戴昭铭,《文化语言学导论》,语文出版社,1996年
丹尼·卡瓦拉罗,《文化理论关键词》,张卫东等译,江苏人民出版社2005年
道尔古,郭志菊,论蒙汉语人体赐予的热点及文化意蕴,内蒙古社会科学2003年2期
董秀芳,《词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展》,四川民族出版社,2002年
恩斯特·卡西尔,《人伦》,甘阳译,上海译文出版社,1985年
恩斯特·马赫,《认识与谬误》,洪佩郁译,东方出版社,2005年
范晓,《三个平面的语法观》,北京语言文化大学出版社,1996年
范金玲、李红,汉语空间方位词“上”与“下”不对称的认知语义分析,外国语言文学研究,2003年
费尔迪南·德·索绪尔,《普通语言学教程》高明凯译,商务印书馆1980年
冯广艺,《汉语比喻研究史》,湖北教育出版社,2002年
冯凌宇,汉语“人体+人体”双音转义词语的意义和结构,湖北大学学报,2007年3期
冯凌宇,汉语人体词语的演变特点,武汉大学学报,2006年9期
符淮青,《词义的分析和描写》,语文出版社,1996年
高守纲,《古代汉语词义通论》,语文出版社,1994年
葛本仪,《现代汉语词汇学》,山东人民出版社,2001年
耿占春,《隐喻》,东方出版社,1993年
龚群虎,人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题,语文研究,1994年4期
古敬恒,《人体词与人的秘密》,团结出版社,2000年
桂诗春,《新编心理语言学》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
汉娜·阿伦特,《精神生活·思维》,姜志辉译江,苏教育出版社,2006年
何金松,《汉字形义考源》,武汉出版社,1996年
何善芬,《英汉语言对比研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年
黑格尔《美学》朱光潜译,商务印书馆1979年
洪堡特,《洪堡特语言哲学文集》,湖南教育出版社,2001年
洪堡特,《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》,姚小平译,商务印书馆,1999年
胡曙中,《英汉修辞比较研究》,上海外语教育出版社,1993年
胡裕树,《现代汉语》,上海教育出版社,1981年。
胡壮麟,《认知语言学》,北京大学出版社,2004年
胡壮麟,语言、认知、隐喻,现代外语,1997年四期
黄华,试比较概念隐喻理论和概念整合理论,外语与外语教学,2001年6期
黄金贵,《古代文化词义集类辨考》,上海教育出版社,1995年
加达默尔,《哲学解释学》,夏镇平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年
贾彦德,《汉语语义学》,北京大学出版社,1999年
贾玉新,《跨文化交际学》,上海外语教育出版社,1997年
蒋绍愚,关于汉语词汇系统及其发展变化的几点想法,中国语文,1989年1期
杰弗里·利奇,《语义学》,李瑞华等译,上海外语教育出版社,1987年
解海江、张志毅,汉语面部语义场历史演变——兼论汉语词汇史研究方法论的转换,古汉语研究,1993年4期
克洛德·列维·斯特劳斯,《野性的思维》,李幼蒸译,中国人民大学出版社2006年
孔多塞著,《人类精神进步史表纲要》,何兆武、何文斌译,三联出版社,1998年
库尔特·考夫卡,《格式塔心理学》,黎炜译,浙江教育出版社,1997年
莱布尼茨,《人类理智新论》,陈修斋译,商务印书馆,1982年
蓝纯,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》(英文本),外语教学与研究出版社,2003年
蓝纯,《认知语言学与隐喻研究》,外语教学与研究出版社,2004年
蓝纯,从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻,外语教学与研究,1999年4期
雷纳特.N.凯恩,《创设联结：教学与人脑》吕林海译,华东师范大学出版社,2004年
李国南,《英汉修辞格对比研究》,福建人民出版社,1999年
李国南,《辞格与词汇》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年
李国正,《古汉语文化探秘》,书海出版社,1998年
李慧贤,试析汉语人体词语隐喻投射现象,内蒙古大学学报,2008年9月,第40卷第5期
李敏生,《汉字哲学初探》社会科学文献出版社,1997年
李瑞华,《英汉语言文化对比研究》,上海外语教育出版社,1996年
李树新,论人体词语的文化意蕴,内蒙古大学学报,2002年9月
李树新,人体词语的认知模式与语义类推,汉字文化,2004年4期
李玄玉,关于人体器官的量词,阜阳师范学院学报,2002年第6期
李玄玉,略论动词+人体词语名词式复合词的定性和定位,安徽警官职业学院学报,2002年第4期
李玄玉,维吾尔语和韩语“手、脚”谚语比较研究,广西教育学院学报,2002年第4期
李瑛,容器图式和容器隐喻,西南民族大学学报,2005年5月,总25卷,第5期
李宇明,《汉语量范畴研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2000年
李宇明,空间在世界认知中的地位,湖北大学学报,1999年第3期
李宇明主,《理论语言学教程》,华中师范大学出版社,2000年
李裕德,《现代汉语词语搭配》,商务印书馆,1998年
廖贵燕,汉英语言中“头”的空间隐喻研究,承德石油高等专科学校学报,2008年3月
廖秋忠,空间方位词和方位参照点,《廖秋忠文集》,北京语言学院出版社,1992年
廖秋忠,现代汉语篇章中空间和时间的参照点,《廖秋忠文集》,1992年
林宝卿,《汉语与中国文化》,科学出版社,2000年
林铭均、曾祥云,《名辩学新探》,中山大学出版社,2000年
林书武,“语言的隐喻基础”评介,外语教学与研究,1996年2月
林书武,国外隐喻研究综述,外语教学与研究,1997年第1期
林书武,塔隐喻与认识,外语教学与研究,1995年第4期
林书武,隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势,外国语,2002年1月
凌云,汉语类比造词初探,汉语教学与研究,1999年第2期
刘爱伦,《思维心理学》,上海教育出版社,2002年
刘大为,《比喻、近喻与自喻》,上海教育出版社,2001年
刘丹青,《语法化与语法研究》,商务印书馆,2005年
刘拐,《文心雕龙》,北京燕山出版社,2001年
刘宁生,汉语怎样表达的空间关系,中国语文,1994年第3期
刘润清,《现代语言学名著选读》,测绘出版社,1988年
刘叔新,《汉语描写词汇学》,商务印书馆,1990年
刘正光,莱柯夫隐喻理论中的缺陷,外语与外语教学,2001年第1期
龙伯纯,《文字发凡》,上海广智书局出版,1905年
卢华岩,由“到”义动词“上、下”构成的动宾组合,语言教学与研究,2001年第3期
卢卫中,人体隐喻化的认知特点,外语教学,2003年地第12期
鲁道夫·卡尔纳普,《世界的逻辑构造》,陈启伟译,上海译文出版社,1999年
陆国强,《现代英语词汇学》,上海外语教育出版社,1983年
陆宗达、王宁,《训话方法论》,中国社会科学出版社,1983年
罗伯特·所罗门,《大问题》,张卜天译,广西师范大学出版社2004年
罗文青,越南语言文字使用的历史回溯,广西民族大学学报,2007年第1期
罗文青,越语双音节汉越词对应汉语倒序现象规律初探,广西民族大学学报,2008年第4期
吕叔湘,方位词使用情况的初步考察,《汉语语法论文集》,商务印书馆,1963年
吕叔湘、马庆株,《语法研究人门》,商务印书馆,1999年
吕叔湘、朱德熙,《语法修辞讲话》,开明书店出版社,1951年
马蒂尼奇,《语言哲学》,牟博等译,商务印书馆,1998年
马清华,《文化语义学》,江西人民出版社,2000年
马清华,词义类扩的相貌知觉倾向,语文研究,1999年第2期
马提索夫,藏面语族语言的研究和展望——马提索夫教授访问记,民族语文,1990年,第1期
倪宝元,《修辞》,浙江人民出版社,1983年
牛保义,《认知语言学经典文献选读》,河南大学出版社,2008年
欧内斯特·内格尔,《科学的结构》,徐向东译,上海译文出版社2005年
潘文国,《汉英语对比纲要》,北京语言大学出版社,1997年
潘文国,对比语言学的目标与范围,外语与外语教学,2006年第1期
潘文国,语言的定义,华东师范大学学报,2001年第1期
潘文国、谭惠敏,《对比语言学：历史与哲学思考》,上海教育出版社,2006年
潘文国、杨自俭,《共性·个性·视角—英汉对比的理论与方法研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2008年
彭增安,《隐喻研究的新视角》,山东文艺出版社,2006年
彭增安,隐喻的作用机制,修辞学习,1998年第5期
齐沪扬,《现代汉语空间问题研究》,学林出版社,1998年,37-38页
齐振海,论“心“的隐喻——基于汉、英语料库对比研究,外语研究,2003年第3期
钱冠连,《语言-人类最后的家园》,商务印书馆2005年
钱进,说“脚”构词语系列及其文化内涵,语文学刊,1996年第5期
任继愈,《中国哲学史论》,上海人民出版社1981年
任学良,《古汉语常用词订正》,浙江大学出版社,1987年
阮江灵,重新认知汉语借词在越南语中的地位和作用,民族语文,2001年第1期。
萨丕尔,《语言论》,陆卓元译,商务印书馆,2000年
邵敬敏,《汉语语法的立体研究》,商务印书馆,2000年
沈家煊,“语法化”研究综观,外语教学与研究,1994年第4期
沈家煊,《不对称和标记论》,江西教育出版社,1999年
沈家煊,《沈家煊卷》,安徽教育出版社,2002年
沈家煊,实词虚化机制,当代语言学,1998年第3期
沈家煊,转指和转喻,当代语言学,1999年第1期
石毓智、李讷所,《汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制》,北京大学出版社,2001年
史锡尧,“口”、“嘴”语义语用分析,汉语学习,1994年第1期
史锡尧,“心”族词语语义语用考察,中国语文,1994第3期
束定芳,《现代语义学》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,《隐喻学研究》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
束定芳,论隐喻的基本类型及句法和语义特征,外国语,2000年第1期
宋永培,《“说文”与上古汉语词义研究》,巴蜀书社,2001年
苏宝荣,《词义研究与辞书释义》,商务印书馆,2000年
苏宝荣、宋永培,《古汉语词义简论》,河北教育出版社,1987年
苏晓军,概念整合理论的认知力,外国语,2001年第3期
苏新春,《汉语词义学》,广东教育出版社,1997年
苏新春,《文化的结晶—词义》,吉林教育出版社,1994年
孙良明,《词义与释义》,湖北人民出版社,1982年
孙玉文,《汉语变调构词研究》,北京大学出版社,2000年
汤川秀树,《创造力和直觉》,周林东译,复旦大学出版社,1987年
汤志祥,《当代汉语词语的共时状况及其擅变》,复旦大学出版社,2001年
汪少华,合成空间理论对隐喻的阐释力,外国语,2001年第3期
王艾录、司富珍,《汉语的语词理据》,商务印书馆,2001年
王德春,《词汇学研究》,山东教育出版社,1983年
王珏, 《汉语生命范畴初论》,华东师范大学出版社,2004年
王珏,《现代汉语名词研究》,华东师范大学出版社,2001年
王力,《汉语史稿》,中华书局,1980年
王力,《谈谈学习古代汉语》,山东教育出版社,1984年
王力,《中国语法理论》中华书局,1954年
王敏,英汉人体词语认知对比研究,荆门职业技术学院学报,2005年第2期
王宁,训话学与汉语双音词的结构和意义,语言教学与研究,1997年第4期
王希杰,《修辞学通论》,南京大学出版社,1996年
王希杰,借代的定义和范围及本质,毕节师范高等专科学校学报,2004年第2期
王寅,Lakof和Johnson的体验哲学,当代语言学,2002年第2期,
王寅,认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学,外语教学与研究,2002年第2期,
王寅,中西隐喻对比及隐喻工作机制分析,解放军外国语学院学报,2003年,第2期
王作新,《汉字结构系统与传统思维方式》,武汉出版社,1999年
维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社,2001年.
吴恩锋,论汉语“心”认知系统,语言教学与研究,2004年第6期
吴静,空间隐喻的英汉对比研究,山东外语教学,2001年第3期
吴平,《英汉修辞手段比较》,安徽教育出版社,2001.
武占坤、王勤,《现代汉语词汇概要》,内蒙古人民出版社,1983年
萧国政,《汉语语法研究论》,华中师范大学出版社,2001年
邢福义,《文化语言学》,湖北教育出版社,2000年
邢福义,《现代汉语语法修辞专题》,高等教育出版社,2002年。
熊文华,《汉英应用对比概论》,上海外语教育出版社,1997年
徐国庆,《现代汉语词汇系统论》,北京大学出版社,1999年
徐时仪,《古白话词汇研究论稿》,上海教育出版社,2000年
许晋,人体词语转类用法的文化语言学考察,语言学理论与研究,2006年第4期
许威汉,《20世纪的汉语词汇学》,山西人民出版社,2000年
许余龙,《对比语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,1992年
亚里斯多德,《修辞学》,三联书店出版社,1991年
杨合鸣,《古今语法差异》,社会科学文献出版社,1996年
杨君,论隐喻的认知作用,修辞学习,1996年第2期
杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译3》,上海外语教育出版社,2000年
杨自俭,《英汉语比较与翻译4》,上海外语教育出版社,2002年
伊莉曼.艾孜买提,《汉语和日语中人体词语之文化联想》,新疆师范大学学报,2003年第4期
殷寄明,《语源学概论》,上海教育出版社,2001年
英海尔德,《学习与认知发展》,华东师范大学出版社,2001年
应雨田,比喻型词语的类型及释义,中国语文,1993年第4期
袁晖、戴耀晶编,《三个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野》,语文出版社,1998年
袁晖、宗廷虎,《汉语修辞学史》,山西人民出版杜,1995年
袁毓林,比喻结构的转换生成研究初探,杭州大学学报,1986年第一期
袁毓林,一价名词的认知研究,中国语文,1994年第4期
约翰·塞尔,《心灵、语言与社会》李步楼译,上海译文出版社,2001年
臧克和,《说文解字的文化说解》,湖北人民出版社,1992年
詹人凤,《现代汉语语义学》,商务印书馆,1997年
张斌主编,范开泰、张亚军,《现代汉语语法分析》,华东师范大学出版社,2000
张德鑫,《中外语言文化漫谈》,华语教学出版社,1996年
张敏,《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》,中国社会科学出版社,1998年
张维鼎,《语言文化纵论》,四川辞书出版社,2002年
张永言,《词汇学简论》,华中工学院出版社,1982年
张志公,《现代汉语》,人民教育出版社,1986年
张志毅,汉语“面”部语义场的历史演变,古汉语研究,1994年第3期
张志毅,张庆云,《词汇语义学》,商务印书馆,2001年
赵克勤,《古代汉语词汇学》,商务印书馆,1994年
赵沛霖,《兴的起源—历史积淀与诗歌艺术》,中国社会科学出版社,1987年
赵世开,《汉英对比语法论文集》,上海外语教育出版社,1999年
赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社,2001年
赵艳芳,语言结构的空间性,外语论坛,2003年第4期
赵永新,反映人体器官的词语及其文化因素,语言文字应用,1993年第2期
赵玉兰编, 《越汉翻译教程》,北京大学出版社,2002年。
郑远汉,《言语风格学》,湖北人民出版社,1998年第2版
郑子瑜、宗廷虎等：《中国修辞学通史》,吉林教育出版社,1998
中国社会科学院历史研究所, 《古代中越关系史资料选编》,中国社会科学出版社1981年
钟守满,颜色词的语义认知和语义结构,外语教学,2001年第四期,
周光庆,汉语词义引申中的文化心理,华中师范大学学报,1992年第5期
周光庆、杨合鸣主编《古代汉语教程》,华中师范大学出版社,2001年
周榕,时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究,心理科学,2000年第2期
周榕,隐喻认知基础的心理现实性,外语教学与研究,2001年第2期
朱文俊,《人类语言学论题研究》,北京语言文化大学出版社,2000年
朱晓军,从“空间”语义特征看空间问题新研究,民族论坛,2007年第6期
朱晓军,认知语言学视角下的汉语个体量词搭配,语言与翻译,2006年第4期
朱星《汉语词义简析》,湖北人民出版社,1981年
祝敏彻,《近代汉语句法史稿》中州古籍出版社,1996年
宗廷虎,《中国现代修辞学史》,浙江教育出版社,1990年
梅家驹,竺一鸣,高蕴琦,殷鸿翔编《同义词词林》,上海辞书出版社,1983年
朱晓红,从认知角度看“上”和“下”的方位性隐喻,安徽工业大学学报,2004年第6期
张谊生《现代汉语虚词研究》,华东师范大学出版社,2000年
《现代汉语大词典》,汉语大词典出版社,2000年
《现代汉语词典》商务印书馆,2005年
《应用汉语词典》,商务印书馆,2000年
《现代汉语分类词典》,董大年,汉语大词典出版社,1998年
《汉语正序倒序多用词典》,四川人民出版社,2001年
《越语大词典》(Dai tir dien Tieng Viet),胡志明市国家大学出版社,2007年
《汉越词和短语词典》(Tir dien tir va ngu Han Viet)胡志明市出版社,1989年
《牛津简明英语词典》(The Concise Oxford Dictionary),牛津大学出版社,外语教学与研究出版社,2000年
《牛津英汉双解词典》(Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary),外语教学与研究出版社,1992年
《中国大百科全书》,中国大百科全书出版社,1996年
陈丽丽,《现代汉语器官名词内部特征与外部表现》,华东师范大学硕士论文,2008年
崔新广,《汉日面部语义场的对比研究》,山东烟台师范学院硕士论文 2000年
李刚,《从认知角度研究汉英语中的身体隐喻》河北师范大学硕士论文,2009年
李文莉,《人体隐喻系统研究》,华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年
李研,《现代汉语人体近义名词分布研究》,华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2010年
吕晓娟,《从人治的角度分析英汉空间隐喻》,西北工业大学硕士学位论文,2001年
满欣,《汉语内脏器官词语意义分析》,广西师范大学硕士学位论文,2007年
杨晓燕,《汉英人体词汇对比研究》,云南师范大学硕士学位论文,2009年
叶皖林,《现代汉语人体方所表达形式研究》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文,2001年
周毕吉,《现代汉语人体名词的多角度研究》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2006年
朱学岚,《人体词语的语义、语用考察》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文,2001年
蔡永强,《汉语方位词及其概念隐喻系统》,北京语言大学博士学位论文,2008年
陈家旭,《英汉隐喻认知对比研究》,华东师范大学博士学位论文,2006年
冯凌宇《汉语人体词语研究》,武汉大学博士学位论文,2003年
付宁,《语法化视角下的现代汉语单音方位词研究》,山东大学博士学位论文,2009年
何爱晶《名-动转类的转喻理据与词汇学习》,西南大学博士论文,2009年
黄碧蓉,《人体词语义研究》,上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2009年
李金兰,《现代汉语身体动词的认知研究》,华东师范大学博士学位论文,2006年
李静熹,《现代汉语方位词研究》,上海师范大学博士学位论文,2000年
王冬梅,《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2001年
文雅丽,《现代汉语心理动词研究》,北京语言大学博士学位论文,2007年
吴云,《汉语空间隐喻专题研究》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2002年
赵倩,《汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因》,北京语言大学,2007年
朱晓军《空间范畴的认知语义研究》,华东师范大学博士论文,2008年
Akhundov, Murad D.1986.Conceptions of space and time.Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press
Allbritton, D.1995.When Metaphors Functions as Schemas:Some Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol,10 (1),33-46
Allbritton, D.McKoon &Gerrig, R1995. Metaphor-based schemas and text representations:Making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition.21 (3).612-625
Boroditsky, L.1999. First-language thinking for second-language understanding: Mandarin and English speakers'conceptions of time. Proceeding of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, BC.
Brown, Theodore L.2003:Making Truth. Metaphor in Science, Urbana & Chicago.
Bryan.S.Turner 1996. The body and society:Explorations in social theory. London: Sage Publications.
Casasanto, Daniel.2004. How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish.in: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.
Clark, H.H.1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, New York:Academic Press.
Danica Skara.2004.Body Metaphors-Reading the Body in Contemporary Culture.Coll, Antropol.28
Darwin.C.1872. The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Reprinted, New York:Philosophical Library,1998
Darwin.C.1998.3rd with Introduction, Afterword and Commentary by Paul Ekman: London:Happer Collins; New York:Oxford University Press.
Daugherty, P.S.1997. Body, Mind and Metaphor:the Worldview of Yoruk Women of the Central Taurus Mountains of Turkey. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Dedre Gentner, Mutsumi Imai, and Lera Boroditsky. As time goes by:Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes,17 (5),537-565
Dirven Ren and Wolf Paprott The Ubiquity of Metaphor:Metaphor in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing House.
Ekman P.1992b. Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review.99,550-553.
Ekman, P.1984. Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds).Approaches to Emotion. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, pp.319-344.
Ekman, P.1993. Facial expression of emotion. American Psychologist.48,384-392.
Ekman, P.1977. Biological and cultural contributions to body and facial movement. In.Blacking (ed.). Anthropology of the Body, London:Academic Press, pp. 34-84.
Eric Charles Steinhart.2001. The Logic of Metaphor:Analogous Parts of Possible Worlds. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Evans, V.2003. The Structure of Time:Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam:
Fauconniek Gilles.1998. Mental Spaces, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Fauconniek Gilles.1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C J; Atkins, BT S.2000. Describing polysemy:The case of "crawl"". In Leacock, C. Polysemy:Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.91-110. p.100
Frye Northrop,1985, A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.Cambridge. Mass:MIT Press
Frye Northrop.1985. The Harper Handbook to literature. New York
Geeraerts, Dirk.2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (red.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast 435-465. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentner, D.,& Wolff, P.1997. Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language,37 (3),331-355.
Gentner, D.1983. Structure—Mapping:A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155-170.
Gibbs Raymond W. (ed.) 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gibbs, R.1989. The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought,Language and Understanding. Cambridge:C.U.P.
Gibbs, R. W.1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition,61,309-319.
Gibbs, R.W.2002. Bodily Action and Metaphorical Comprehension. Style 36,524- 540.
Gibbs, R.W.Jr.& Steen, G.J. (ed.) 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goatly, A.1997. The Language of Metaphors. London and NewYork:Routledge.
Goossens, L.1995. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expression for Linguistic Action. In Goosens, L.et.al (eds) By Word of Mouth. Metaphor and Metonymy and Linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Grigg, Russell.2008. Lacan, language, and philosophy, chapter 11 Lacan and Jakobson-Metaphor and Metonymy pp.151-2,160
Harraway, Donna.1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto:Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." In Simians, Cyborgs and Women:The Reinvention of Nature. New York:Routlage:149-181.
Hawks, Terence. Metaphor. Chicago:University Press,1972
Hebdige, D.1979. Subculture:The Meaning of Style. New York:Metheun.
Heine Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press
Honeck.P. Richard and Robert R. Hoffman 1980 Cognition and FigurativeLanguage, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
Humboldt, Wilhelm von.1988. On Language:The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in Mind:The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark.1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics 3-4.
Josita Maouene, Shohei Hidaka, Linda.B.Smith.2008. Body-parts and Early-learned Verbs.Cognitive Science 32
Juliana Goschler.2005. Embodiment and Body Metaphors. Metaphorik.de.
Karl.J.Franklin.2003. Some Kewa Metaphors:Body parts as Automobile Parts. SIL Electronic Working Papers.
Kelly, E.M.1992. The Metaphorical Basis of Language:A Study in Cross-Cultural Linguistics, or, The Left-handed Hummingbird. Mellen Press.
Keshavmurti.1991. Space and Time. New Delhi:Sterling Publishers
Kittay, E.1987. Metaphor:its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture and body in human feeling. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kroeber & Clyde Kluckhohn 1952.CULTURE:A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Vintage Books.New York
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George& Johnson, Mark.1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought, New York. Basic Books.
Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G& Johnson. Mark. Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 77, Issue 8,1980 (453-486)
Lakoff, G.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University press
Lakoff, G..1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guid to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press. P99
Landa, A.1996. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish. Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Conception
Lera Boroditsky.2000. Metaphoric structuring:understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75,1-28.
Lera Boroditsky.2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology,43/1,1-22.
Lyons, John 1977. "Deixis, space and time" in Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Machamer, Peter.2000. The nature of metaphor and scientific description. Hallyn, Fernand (ed.):Metaphor and Analogy in the Sciences, Dordrecht,35-52.
Matisoff, J. A.1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman. Philadelphia:Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Inc.
Matisoff, J.A.1986. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: An Essay in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations. Cahiers de linguistique-Asie orientale, vol.15 n°1,1986. pp.5-57
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition,60 (2),173-204.
Ning Yu.1998. The contemporary Theory of Metaphor:A Perspective from Chinese. John Benjamin Publishing Company.1998:85.
NingYu.2000. Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol 15 (3) 159-175.
NingYu..2007.Heart and Cognition in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7
NingYu.1995. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2),59-92
NingYu.2001. What does our face mean to us. Pragmatic&Cognition.9:1
NingYu.2002. Body and emotion:Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Pragmatic&Cognition 10:1/2
NingYu.2003. Chinese metaphor of Thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14-2/3
NingYu.2003a. Metaphor, Body, and Culture:The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage. METAPHOR AND SYMBOL,18(1),13-31.
NingYu.2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatic (6)
O'Neill, John.1985. Five Bodies:The Human Shape of Modern Society. Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Oey, M.E.1990. Psycho-collocation in Malay: A South-East Areal Feature. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13 (1)
Ortony Andrew 1979 Metaphor and Thought and Edition, Cambridge University Press..
Pinker, Steven.1999. Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language, London.
Reddy, Michael.1979. The Conduit Metaphor: a Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language, in A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought.. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Riemer, N.2001. Remetonymizing metaphor:Hypercategories in semantic extension. In Cognitive Linguistics 12
Richards. I. A.1936/1950. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:Oxford UP
Robert.E.MacLaury.1989 Zapotec body-part locatives:Prototypes and metaphoric extentions. University of Chicago press.
Roediger, Henry L.1980. Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. in:Memory and Cognition 8,231-246.
Rohrer, Tim.2006. Image Schemata in the Brain. in Beate Hampe (ed.) From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin
Roman Jakobson and Halle, Morris.1956.Two Aspects of Language and Two types Aphasic Disturbances in Fundamentals of Language.The Hague & Paris: Mouton, section The Metaphoric and Metonymy Poles.
Ronald W. Langacker 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press
Rosenberg.E.L&Ekman.P.1994. Coherence between expressive and experiential systems in emotion.Cognitive and Emotion.8.201-229
Rubal, E.R.1994. Metaphors of the Body. M.A Thesis. California State University.
Rubin, E.2001. Figure and Ground. In Yantis, S. (Ed.), Visual Perception. (pp. 225-229).Philadelphia, Psychology Press
Rudolf Arnheim.1969 Visual Thinking. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Sakuragi, Toshiyuki and Judith W. Fuller,2003. Body-Part Metaphors:A Cross-Cultural Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,32 (4)
Searle, John R.1984. Minds, brains and science, Cambridge.
Spender, Dale.1991. Man Made Language. London:Pandora Press.
Sperber. D & Wilson.1996. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell,2 edition, Oxford
Suzuki, T.1984. Words in Context:A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture.New York:Condansha International.
Talmy Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambrigde& London:The MIT press.
Taylor, John R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press Teaching and Research Press
Toshiyuki Sakuragi&Judith W.Fuller.2003. Body-Part Metaphors:A Cross-Culture Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol 32, No 4.
Tversky, A.1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review,84,327-352
Ullmann, Stephen.1962.Semantic:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell
Ungerer & H. J. Schmid.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Addison Weslep Longman Limited
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam:Benjamins,1999
Bui Khac Viet,1987, Ve nhom tu chi bo phan ca the nguoi trong tieng Viet:Nhung van de Ngon ngu hoc cac ngon nguphuong Dong. NXB Khoa hoc xa hoi
Cao Xuan Hao,2003. Tieng Viet-Vdn Viet-Nguoi Viet, NXB Tre
Dinh Trong Lac.1999.99 cach tu tu trong tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Do Hoang Ngan, Mot so nhan xet ve thanh ngu co tu chi bo phan ca the nguoi trong Tieng Nhat. Tap chi ngon ngu, so 8,2002
Do Huu Chau,1999. Tu vung ngu nghia tieng Viet, NXB Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Hoang Tho Huyen. Nghia bieu trung qua mot so ten goi bo phan con nguoi trong tieng Anh. Tap chi Ngon Ngu hoc tre,1999-8
Ky yeu Hoi thao Khoa hoc "Tieng Viet va Van hoa Viet Nam cho nguoi nuoc ngoai 2001.Dac trung van hoa dan toc the hien trong thanh ngu tieng Viet co tu chi bo phan co the ngudi. Nxb Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Ngo Minh Thuy. Con mat trong thanh ngu tieng Nhat, Tap chi Ngon Ngu va Doi song 2005-8
Nguyen Duc Ton.2002. Tim hieu dac trung van hoa-dan toc cua ngon ngu va tu duy o nguoi Viet (trong su so sanh voi nhung dan toc khac). NXB Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi
Nguyen Duc Ton. Ngu nghia cac tic chi bo phan co the nguoi trong tieng Viet va tieng Nga, Tap chi Ngon Ngu va Doi song 2005-08
Nguyen Duc Ton. Ten goi bo phan ca the trong tieng Viet voi viec bieu trung tam ly tinh cam. Tap chi Van Hoa dan gian,1994-03
Nguyen Duc Ton. Tim hieu dac trung van hoa dan toc cua ten goi dan gian. Tap chi Van Hoa dan gian,1997-4
Nguyen Kim Than.1963. Nghien cuu ve nguphap tieng Viet. NXB Khoa Hoc
Nguyen Ngoc Them 1999. Ca so van hoa Viet Nam, NXB Giao Duc
Nguyen Ngoc Vu, An du y niem bo phan ca the la vat chua dung trong thanh ngir tieng Anh, Ngu hoc tre,2008-3
Nguyen Ngoc Vu.2008. Thanh ngu tieng Anh va thanh ngu tieng Viet co yeu to chi bo phdn ca the nguoi duoi goc nhin cua ngon ngu hoc tri nhan, Luan an tien sy ngu van, DH Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi va Nhan Van
Nguyen Tai Can 1979. Nguon goc va qua trinh hinh thanh cach doc Han-Viet. NXB Khoa hoc xa hoi, Ha Noi
Nguyen Thi Huong. Dac trung ngu nghia cua bo phan tuc ngu co chua tu tro bo phan ca the nguoi. Ngu hoc tre,1999-2
Nguyen Thi Thu. Su chuyen nghia cua tu TAY trong tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre 2002
Nguyen Thi Thu. Thanh ngu tieng Viet co tic chi "tay" "chdn" voi dac trung van hoa dan toe". Ngon Ngu va Doi song.2006-3
Nguyen Thi Trung Thanh. Ve cac tic ghep dang lap hinh thanh cdc tu don chi bo phdn ca the.Ngon ngu va dai song 2001-9
Nguyen Thien Giap.1998. Tu vung hoc Tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Nguyen Trong Khanh.Buoc dau doi chieu dac diem ten goi cac bo phdn ca the con nguoi trong tieng Lao voi Tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre.1998-3
Nguyen Trong Khanh. Su chuyen nghia cua cac tic chi bo phdn ca the con nguai trong tieng Lao.Tap chi Ngon ngu 1998-6
Nguyen Van Khang 2007. Tic ngoai lai trong tieng Viet, NXB Giao Due
Nguyen Van Khang. Su bien doi ve ngu nghia duoi tac dong cua cac nhan to ngon ngu-xa hoi. Tap chi Ngon Ngu hoc 2004-4.
Nguyen Van Na. Bieu trung cua cac tu chi bo phdn ca the trong tuc ngu Viet Nam. Ngu hoc tre 2005-3
Pham Thi Hoa. Hien tuang nhieu nghia cua cac tu chi bo phan ca the nguai trong tieng Viet. Ngu hoc tre 2002-6
Phan Hong Xuan. Ca che chuyen nghia theo phuang thuc an du cua tu chi bo phdn ca the nguoi. Ngon ngu 1999-5
Phan Ngoc.1991. Meo giai nghia cac tic Han Viet, NXB Thanh ph6 H6 Chi Minh
Phan Thi Hong Xuan. Ca che chuyen nghia theo phuang thuc an du cua tie chi bo phan ca the nguai trong tieng viet. Ngu hoc tre 1999-1
Ta Duc Tu. Mot so thanh ngu co tic BUNG. Ngon Ngu va doi song.2005-3
Trinh Duc Hien. Nhung tu ghep co tu to chi bo phan ca the trong tieng Viet. Ngon Ngu va doi song 2007-8
Trinh Duc Hien Cdu truc hai bac trong ngu nghia cua thanh ngu co tu chi bo phan ca the.Van hoa Dan gian.2003-5
Trinh Thi Thanh Hue. Buoc ddu nghien cu hien tuang an du bo phan ca the nguai tu goc do ngon ngu hoc tri nhan. Ngu hoc tre 2008-2
Vu Duc Nghieu. Nhung don vi tie vung bieu thi tam ly, y chi, tinh cam co yeu to chi bo phan co the nguoi trong tieng Viet. Tap chi Khoa hoc DHQGHN, Khoa hoc Xa hoi va Nhan van 2007-23:156-163