基于语料库的隐喻普遍性与变异性研究
|
摘要
认知语言学体验性假说认为,人们通常借助具体的诸如人体(部位)等源域概念来理解和描述抽象的诸如认知(心智)等目标域概念,因此,人体在语言意义的产生和理解过程中发挥至关重要的作用。本研究以体验认知互动论假说为理论基点,旨在探讨人体(部位)隐喻的普遍概念、语言表达方式及其文化具体性(cultural specificity)三者的有机联系。基于英、汉语两种大型通用语料库中的语料,本研究分析、比较了英汉两种语言和文化社团如何使用“头”和“心”这两个人体部位来构建和描述心智与情感活动的语言表达方式,从而剖析隐喻产生的体验和文化双重根源,揭示隐喻普遍性和文化变异性的本质特征,发掘隐喻在语言-思维-文化三者之间的互动关联,重新审视人体(经验)在语言意义产生和抽象概念形成中的地位和作用。同时,本研究试图为如何从大型语料库中系统识别语言隐喻和概念隐喻提供方法论启示。
本研究仅分析语言符号研究意义上的隐喻,并未涉及心理学行为研究意义上的隐喻,因此,所发现的概念隐喻不代表语言使用者的隐喻在线加工过程及其存在于大脑概念系统中的认知表征形式。值得指出的是,研究语言和思维中的隐喻须采用各自独立的隐喻识别与分析方法,这也是本研究在研究方法上的创新之处。本研究采用Pragglejaz团队的隐喻识别程序(MIP)来识别语言中的隐喻,而思维中的概念隐喻则采用词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO:Suggested Upper Merged Ontology)语料库的方法来加以判别。隐喻识别程序(MIP)通过辨认隐喻词汇(MUWs)识别语言隐喻,不涉及隐喻概念；词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO)则通过确认概念域来识别概念隐喻。这种自下而上(bottom-up)的隐喻识别方法较之先入为主以概念隐喻为出发点自上而下(top-down)的传统隐喻分析方法具有明显的优势。
本研究通过分析和比较,发现英汉两种语言在语言隐喻和概念隐喻存在以下异同之处：(a)隐喻是语言使用的普遍现象,所研究词项的隐喻义用法在两种语言中的使用频次均相当于、甚至高于其字面义。词汇的隐喻用法在语言中呈现出与其邻近词汇系统关联的突出特征,固定和半固定搭配表达式为辨别词汇隐喻义的主要标志。(b)英汉两种语言用于理解和描述心智活动的两个概念隐喻分别是：头(英)/心(汉)是容器以及头(英)/心(汉)是物体的操控。但是,这两个概念隐喻在两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度有差异,头(英)是容器和心(汉)是物体的操控分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。(c)两种语言所共享的用于理解和描述情感活动的三个概念隐喻是：心是物体、心是容器和心是运动。但是,这三者在英汉两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度亦存在差异,心是物体和心是容器分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。英汉两种语言在共享概念隐喻凸显(规约)度上的差异说明,英汉两种不同文化对于相同身体经验的阐述有着各自不同的概念化方式和认知偏好,从而导致差异的出现。
概念隐喻在英汉两种语言中所具有的共同性(普遍性)表明,相同的身体经验是人们构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的基础。研究发现,隐喻的文化变异性主要体现在两种语言和文化中可供构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的“目标域范围”上。(a)英语主要使用两个“源域”概念描述心智活动：容器和物体的操控(头是容器和头是物体的操控)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以描述：物体的操控、地点、运动、容器和光线(心是物体的操控、心是地点、心是运动、心是容器和心是光线)。其中,概念隐喻“心是地点”、“心是运动”和“心是光线”为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻(alternative metaphors)。(b)英语主要应用三个“源域”概念来表达情感活动：物体、容器和运动(心是物体、心是容器和心是运动)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以表达：容器、运动、物体、热和食物(心是容器、心是运动、心是物体、心是热和心是食物)。其中,概念隐喻“心是热”和“心是食物”则为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻。究其原因,“心”这一“目标域”的“范围”在汉语中得以扩大和延伸,因而导致差异的产生。
英、汉语分别借用“头”、“心”两个不同的身体部位对心智活动加以概念化,由此可见,英汉两种语言存在两种不同的文化认知模式。英语中“头”司掌心智而“心”则主辖情感,呈现出“脑为主”(cerebrocentrism)、“头”与“心”相互分离的二元(dualist)文化认知模式;汉语中“心”主辖心智和情感,呈现出“心为主”(cardiocentrism)的统一(holistic)文化认知模式。英汉两种文化认知模式差异的产生源自两种文化所特有的主流哲学思想和民俗传统,从这个意义上讲,人体(部位)的概念化是文化认知的产物。本研究表明,隐喻的产生源自体验认知和文化概念两者之间的相互作用。体验认知互动论观(the interaction approach)较之“体验认知观”或者“文化认知观”具有更充分的理论描述性和更强的解释力,能够更恰当地阐释隐喻普遍性和变异性的本质特征。隐喻这一普遍认知现象是身体经验、语言和文化三者互动的结晶。
The embodiment thesis views the more abstract target domains of cognition (mind) as based on concrete source domains such as the human body (parts). As a result, the human body plays a crucial role in the creation of meaning and its understanding. The present study takes the interactive view of embodiment and offers a corpus-based and comparative analysis of various conceptualizations of the body (parts), the heart and the head, for inner life experiences both in English and Chinese. It explores the universality and variation in metaphor as well as the cultural basis of metaphorical conceptualization in order to establish significant links between the universal conceptualizations of the body, the respective linguistic expressions and the culture specificity of body metaphors in different cultures.
The primary aim of this study is to reexamine the role of the body in abstract conceptualizations by exploring body and culture as groundings of metaphor, and this line of research is deemed as a new and promising trend to seek out language-mind-culture interactions in metaphor studies. The second aim is to address the critical methodological issues about systematic identification of linguistic and conceptual metaphors in natural data from large-scale corpora. The present study is expected (a) to contribute to the understanding of the cultural basis of metaphor and hopefully to provide new insights into the claim that metaphor arises from body-language-culture interactions; and (b) to shed light on inductive methods of metaphor identification in general.
The present study is concerned with the symbolic dimension of metaphor in both language and thought and does not involve the cognitive process and its cognitive representation in language user's mind. Metaphor research in language and thought needs their own methods of metaphor identification and analysis. This study is innovative in methodology by employing the Pragglejaz Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) for identifying linguistic metaphors, and the WordNet and SUMO method for identifying conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors. The MIP method is only concerned with identifying linguistic metaphors, not conceptual structures of them. The conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors are addressed separately with the WordNet and SUMO method that adds transparency to the procedure. The methodological separation between identifying linguistic and conceptual metaphors has a clear advantage over the top-down approach that would start out from conceptual metaphors in the study of metaphor in language and thought.
Comparison of English and Chinese leads to the identification of the following similarities and differences:(a) Metaphor is indeed pervasive in language and metaphorical uses are as frequent as or more frequent than literal uses. Linguistic metaphors are related systematically to each other, with fixed and semi-fixed expressions as a major indicator of metaphorical uses; and (b) Two conceptual metaphors for mental life, HEAD/HEART AS A CONTAINER and HEAD/HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION, are found in English and Chinese. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency or conventionality of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEAD AS A CONTAINER in English and HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for mental life respectively; and (c) Both English and Chinese share the conceptual metaphors HEART AS AN OBJECT, HEART AS A CONTAINER, and HEART AS MOTION for emotional life. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency (or conventionality) of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEART AS AN OBJECT in English and HEART AS A CONTAINER in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for emotional life respectively. The difference in saliency of the shared conceptual metaphors is a reflection of the relative preferential conceptualizations of body (parts) for inner life experiences in two different cultures.
The findings of the study suggest a significant role of the body (parts) in the conceptualizations of inner life experiences in English and Chinese. In addition, cross-cultural variations in metaphor are observable in the "range of the target" that the two languages and cultures have available for the conceptualizations of the head and/or the heart. The following cross-cultural variations in metaphor are noted:(a) English uses two source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize mental life. HEART AS A LOCATION, HEART AS MOTION, and HEART AS LIGHT, are alternative metaphors for mental life in Chinese; and (b) English employs three source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize emotional life. HEART AS HEAT and HEART AS FOOD are alternative metaphors for emotional life in the Chinese language. The underlying reason is that the "range of the source domains" is extended in the Chinese language and culture, resulting in the cross-cultural variations in English and Chinese.
The conceptualizations of human body (parts) as seats of emotional and mental life reveal different cultural models in the two languages and cultures. The major loci of cognition (mental life) are revealed to be in the head region and the heart region in English and Chinese respectively. The English language displays cerebrocentrism and dualism between the head as the locus of thought and the heart as the locus of emotions, while Chinese displays a holistic heart-centering conceptualization (or cardiocentrism), with the heart as the locus of both thought and emotions. The underlying reason for the difference between the conceptualizations of the heart, seems to lie in the general trends of philosophical thought in the English and Chinese cultures. As language is part of the cultural system, the conceptualizations of the body (parts) are indeed a phenomenon at the cultural level of cognition.
The overall claim of the study is that the interaction approach to body and culture as grounding of metaphor is descriptively more adequate and has greater explanatory power in accounting for both universality and variation in metaphor than either the "embodied cognition" or the "cultural cognition" approach. Metaphor is a widespread phenomenon that occurs in the interactions of body, language, and culture.
本研究仅分析语言符号研究意义上的隐喻,并未涉及心理学行为研究意义上的隐喻,因此,所发现的概念隐喻不代表语言使用者的隐喻在线加工过程及其存在于大脑概念系统中的认知表征形式。值得指出的是,研究语言和思维中的隐喻须采用各自独立的隐喻识别与分析方法,这也是本研究在研究方法上的创新之处。本研究采用Pragglejaz团队的隐喻识别程序(MIP)来识别语言中的隐喻,而思维中的概念隐喻则采用词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO:Suggested Upper Merged Ontology)语料库的方法来加以判别。隐喻识别程序(MIP)通过辨认隐喻词汇(MUWs)识别语言隐喻,不涉及隐喻概念；词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO)则通过确认概念域来识别概念隐喻。这种自下而上(bottom-up)的隐喻识别方法较之先入为主以概念隐喻为出发点自上而下(top-down)的传统隐喻分析方法具有明显的优势。
本研究通过分析和比较,发现英汉两种语言在语言隐喻和概念隐喻存在以下异同之处：(a)隐喻是语言使用的普遍现象,所研究词项的隐喻义用法在两种语言中的使用频次均相当于、甚至高于其字面义。词汇的隐喻用法在语言中呈现出与其邻近词汇系统关联的突出特征,固定和半固定搭配表达式为辨别词汇隐喻义的主要标志。(b)英汉两种语言用于理解和描述心智活动的两个概念隐喻分别是：头(英)/心(汉)是容器以及头(英)/心(汉)是物体的操控。但是,这两个概念隐喻在两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度有差异,头(英)是容器和心(汉)是物体的操控分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。(c)两种语言所共享的用于理解和描述情感活动的三个概念隐喻是：心是物体、心是容器和心是运动。但是,这三者在英汉两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度亦存在差异,心是物体和心是容器分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。英汉两种语言在共享概念隐喻凸显(规约)度上的差异说明,英汉两种不同文化对于相同身体经验的阐述有着各自不同的概念化方式和认知偏好,从而导致差异的出现。
概念隐喻在英汉两种语言中所具有的共同性(普遍性)表明,相同的身体经验是人们构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的基础。研究发现,隐喻的文化变异性主要体现在两种语言和文化中可供构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的“目标域范围”上。(a)英语主要使用两个“源域”概念描述心智活动：容器和物体的操控(头是容器和头是物体的操控)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以描述：物体的操控、地点、运动、容器和光线(心是物体的操控、心是地点、心是运动、心是容器和心是光线)。其中,概念隐喻“心是地点”、“心是运动”和“心是光线”为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻(alternative metaphors)。(b)英语主要应用三个“源域”概念来表达情感活动：物体、容器和运动(心是物体、心是容器和心是运动)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以表达：容器、运动、物体、热和食物(心是容器、心是运动、心是物体、心是热和心是食物)。其中,概念隐喻“心是热”和“心是食物”则为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻。究其原因,“心”这一“目标域”的“范围”在汉语中得以扩大和延伸,因而导致差异的产生。
英、汉语分别借用“头”、“心”两个不同的身体部位对心智活动加以概念化,由此可见,英汉两种语言存在两种不同的文化认知模式。英语中“头”司掌心智而“心”则主辖情感,呈现出“脑为主”(cerebrocentrism)、“头”与“心”相互分离的二元(dualist)文化认知模式;汉语中“心”主辖心智和情感,呈现出“心为主”(cardiocentrism)的统一(holistic)文化认知模式。英汉两种文化认知模式差异的产生源自两种文化所特有的主流哲学思想和民俗传统,从这个意义上讲,人体(部位)的概念化是文化认知的产物。本研究表明,隐喻的产生源自体验认知和文化概念两者之间的相互作用。体验认知互动论观(the interaction approach)较之“体验认知观”或者“文化认知观”具有更充分的理论描述性和更强的解释力,能够更恰当地阐释隐喻普遍性和变异性的本质特征。隐喻这一普遍认知现象是身体经验、语言和文化三者互动的结晶。
The embodiment thesis views the more abstract target domains of cognition (mind) as based on concrete source domains such as the human body (parts). As a result, the human body plays a crucial role in the creation of meaning and its understanding. The present study takes the interactive view of embodiment and offers a corpus-based and comparative analysis of various conceptualizations of the body (parts), the heart and the head, for inner life experiences both in English and Chinese. It explores the universality and variation in metaphor as well as the cultural basis of metaphorical conceptualization in order to establish significant links between the universal conceptualizations of the body, the respective linguistic expressions and the culture specificity of body metaphors in different cultures.
The primary aim of this study is to reexamine the role of the body in abstract conceptualizations by exploring body and culture as groundings of metaphor, and this line of research is deemed as a new and promising trend to seek out language-mind-culture interactions in metaphor studies. The second aim is to address the critical methodological issues about systematic identification of linguistic and conceptual metaphors in natural data from large-scale corpora. The present study is expected (a) to contribute to the understanding of the cultural basis of metaphor and hopefully to provide new insights into the claim that metaphor arises from body-language-culture interactions; and (b) to shed light on inductive methods of metaphor identification in general.
The present study is concerned with the symbolic dimension of metaphor in both language and thought and does not involve the cognitive process and its cognitive representation in language user's mind. Metaphor research in language and thought needs their own methods of metaphor identification and analysis. This study is innovative in methodology by employing the Pragglejaz Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) for identifying linguistic metaphors, and the WordNet and SUMO method for identifying conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors. The MIP method is only concerned with identifying linguistic metaphors, not conceptual structures of them. The conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors are addressed separately with the WordNet and SUMO method that adds transparency to the procedure. The methodological separation between identifying linguistic and conceptual metaphors has a clear advantage over the top-down approach that would start out from conceptual metaphors in the study of metaphor in language and thought.
Comparison of English and Chinese leads to the identification of the following similarities and differences:(a) Metaphor is indeed pervasive in language and metaphorical uses are as frequent as or more frequent than literal uses. Linguistic metaphors are related systematically to each other, with fixed and semi-fixed expressions as a major indicator of metaphorical uses; and (b) Two conceptual metaphors for mental life, HEAD/HEART AS A CONTAINER and HEAD/HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION, are found in English and Chinese. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency or conventionality of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEAD AS A CONTAINER in English and HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for mental life respectively; and (c) Both English and Chinese share the conceptual metaphors HEART AS AN OBJECT, HEART AS A CONTAINER, and HEART AS MOTION for emotional life. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency (or conventionality) of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEART AS AN OBJECT in English and HEART AS A CONTAINER in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for emotional life respectively. The difference in saliency of the shared conceptual metaphors is a reflection of the relative preferential conceptualizations of body (parts) for inner life experiences in two different cultures.
The findings of the study suggest a significant role of the body (parts) in the conceptualizations of inner life experiences in English and Chinese. In addition, cross-cultural variations in metaphor are observable in the "range of the target" that the two languages and cultures have available for the conceptualizations of the head and/or the heart. The following cross-cultural variations in metaphor are noted:(a) English uses two source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize mental life. HEART AS A LOCATION, HEART AS MOTION, and HEART AS LIGHT, are alternative metaphors for mental life in Chinese; and (b) English employs three source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize emotional life. HEART AS HEAT and HEART AS FOOD are alternative metaphors for emotional life in the Chinese language. The underlying reason is that the "range of the source domains" is extended in the Chinese language and culture, resulting in the cross-cultural variations in English and Chinese.
The conceptualizations of human body (parts) as seats of emotional and mental life reveal different cultural models in the two languages and cultures. The major loci of cognition (mental life) are revealed to be in the head region and the heart region in English and Chinese respectively. The English language displays cerebrocentrism and dualism between the head as the locus of thought and the heart as the locus of emotions, while Chinese displays a holistic heart-centering conceptualization (or cardiocentrism), with the heart as the locus of both thought and emotions. The underlying reason for the difference between the conceptualizations of the heart, seems to lie in the general trends of philosophical thought in the English and Chinese cultures. As language is part of the cultural system, the conceptualizations of the body (parts) are indeed a phenomenon at the cultural level of cognition.
The overall claim of the study is that the interaction approach to body and culture as grounding of metaphor is descriptively more adequate and has greater explanatory power in accounting for both universality and variation in metaphor than either the "embodied cognition" or the "cultural cognition" approach. Metaphor is a widespread phenomenon that occurs in the interactions of body, language, and culture.
引文
Ahrens, Kathleen.2002. When love is not digested:underlying reasons for source to target domain pairing in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Yuchau E. Hsiao (ed.), Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference,273-302. Taipei:Cheng-Chi University.
Ahrens, Kathleen.2010. Mapping Principles for Conceptual Metaphors. In Low, Graham, Zazie Todd, Alice Deignan & Lynne Cameron (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World,185-207. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung & Chu-Ren Huang.2003. Conceptual Metaphors:Ontology-based Representation and Corpora Driven Mapping Principles. In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language,35-41. Sapporo, Japan.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung & Chu-Ren Huang.2004. From Lexical Semantics to Conceptual Metaphors:Mapping Principle Verification with WordNet and SUMO, in Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), eds. J. Donghong, L. K. Teng, and H. Wang, Singapore,99-106.
Alverson, Hoyt.1994. Semantics and Experience:Universal Metaphors of Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ameka. Felix.2002. Cultural scripting of body parts for emotions:On 'jealousy' and related emotions in Ewe. In Nick Enfield and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.). Pragmatics and Cognition, special issue on The body in description of emotion, 10 (1-2):27-55.
Arnold, Magda.1960. Emotion and Personality. New York:Columbia University Press.
Bacz, Barbara.2001. What's in the head? Metaphorical expressions in Polish and English. LACUS Forum XXVII,63-74.
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.) 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2000a. Introduction:the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,1-28. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2000b. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,31-58. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2001. On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors:case studies and proposed methodology. In Martin Putz, Susanne Niemeier and Rene Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II:Language Pedagogy,117-146. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,207-277. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2003. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:An analysis and a few modest proposals. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language:Studies in honor of Giinter Radden,223-255. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Barcelona, Antonio.2004. Metonymy behind grammar:The motivation of the seemingly irregular grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In Gunter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation,357-374. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, Reka.2009. Meaning-making:The bigger picture --- An interview with Zoltan Kovecses. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,7,291-300.
Black, Max.1962. Models and Metaphors:studies in language and philosophy. Ithacas:Cornell University Press.
Black, Max.1993. More about metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,2nd edn.,19-42. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Boers, Frank.1999. When a bodily source domain becomes prominent. In Raymond W. Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,47-56. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Boers, Frank.2003. Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol,18,231-238.
Boers, Frank & Murielle Demecheleer.1997. A few metaphorical models in (Western) economic discourse. In Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda R. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics,115-129. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Boers, Frank, Murielle Demecheleer, & June Eyckmans.2004. Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies,8,375-388.
Brugman, Claudia.1990. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 257-66.
Cameron, Lynne.1999. Operationalising'metaphor' for applied linguistic research. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, 3-28. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Lynne.2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London:Continuum.
Cameron, Lynne.2007. Confrontation or complementarity? Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,5, 107-135.
Cameron, Lynne.2008. Metaphor and talk. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,197-211. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Lynne& Alice Deignan.2003. Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol,18,149-160.
Cameron, Lynne & Alice Deignan.2006. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4),671-690.
Cameron, Lynne & Graham Low (eds.). 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CCD. 2002. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian [Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese-English Edition)]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2003. Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,289-310.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Charted s-Black, Jonathan & Timothy Ennis. 2001. A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes 20: 249-266.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens & Ya-hui Sung. 2003. STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A corpus-based, comparative study of Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish. Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), Singapore, 124-133.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathlee Ahrens, & Chu-Ren Huang. 2004. Using WordNet and SUMO to determine source domains of conceptual metaphors. In D.H. Ji, K.T. Lua Kim, and H. Wang (eds.), Recent Advances in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), 91-98. Singapore: COLIPS.
Cienki, Alan. 1999. Models as profiles and bases. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 189-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cienki, Alan and Cornelia Muller. 2008. Metaphor, gesture and thought. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 483-501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H.. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, Timothy C. & William Croft.1997. Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science 21:247-82.
Clausner, Timothy C. & William Croft.1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 1:1-13.
Crisp, Peter.2002. Metaphorical propositions:a rationale. Language and Literature, 11(1),7-16.
Croft, William.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4):335-370.
Croft, William.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comments on Peirsman and Geeraerts, "Metonymy as a prototypical category". Cognitive Linguistics,17(3), 317-326.
Croft, William.2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics,395-420. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
D'Andrade, Roy.1987. A folk model of the mind. In Dorothy Holland, & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought,112-148. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Mark.2011-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available on line at:http://www.americancorpus.org/.
Deignan, Alice.1995. Collins Cobuild English Guides 7:Metaphor. London:Harper Collins Publishers.
Deignan, Alice.1999. Corpus-based research into metaphor. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor,177-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, Alice.2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture:An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol,18,255-271.
Deignan, Alice.2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Deignan, Alice.2006. The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,106-122. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Deignan, Alice.2008. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,280-294. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, Alice, Danuta Gabrys & Agnieszka Solska.1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal,51(4), 352-360.
Deignan, Alice & Liz Potter.2004. A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 36:1231-1252.
Dirven, Rene 2002 a. Introduction. In:Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,1-38. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene.2002 b. Metonymy and metaphor:Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,75--111. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene.2005. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,17-68. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene, Frank Polzenhagen, & Hans-Georg Wolf.2007. Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse analysis. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1222-1240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dirven, Rene, Hans-Georg Wolf, and Frank Polzenhagen.2007. Cognitive linguistics and cultural studies. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1203-1221. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dirven, Rene & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.).2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (Second Revised Edition). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Dirven, Rene & Ralf Porings (eds.).2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene, Roslyn M. Frank & Martin Piitz (eds.).2003. Cognitive Models in Language and Thought:Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Emanatian, Michele.1995. Metaphor and the expression of emotion:The value of cross-cultural perspectives. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(3),163-182.
Emanatian, Michele.1999. Congruence by degree:On the relation between metaphor and cultural models. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,205-218. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan.2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen & Jorg Zinken (eds).2007. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London:Equinox Publishing Company.
Fauconnier, Gilles.1999. Methods and generalizations. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology, 95-127. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science,22(2),133-187.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York:Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2008. Rethinking metaphor. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,53-66. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane.1998. WordNet:An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feyaerts, Kurt.2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis:Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 59-78. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 2006. Frame Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 373-400.Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Foolen, Ad. 2008. The heart as a source of semiosis: The case of Dutch. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages, 373-394. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, Charles. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza lbanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, 379-402. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fortescue, Michael.2001.Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1): 15-39.
Frank, Roslyn M.. 2008. Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.). 2008, Body, Language and Mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness, 1-18. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frank, Roslyn M., Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.). 2008. Body, Language and Mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In Rene Dirven & Ralf P6rings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 435-465. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Rene Dirven, Roslyn Frank, & Martin Piitz (eds.), Cognitive Models in Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 25-68. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2005. Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 163-189. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006a. Introduction:A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Lingu stics:Basic Readings,1-28. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006b. Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,21-49. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Caroline Gevaert.2008. Hearts and (angry) minds in Old English. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages,319-347. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens.2007. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.),3-21. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.).2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Stefan Grondelaers.1995. Looking back at anger:Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World,153-79. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentner, Dedre.1988. Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift. Child Development 59:47-59.
Gentner, Dedre.2001. Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. In M. Gattis (ed.), Spatial Schemas in Abstract Thought,203-222. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Gevaert, Caroline.2001. Anger in Old and Middle English:A'hot'topic? Belgian Essays on Language and Literature,89-101.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition 61, 309-319.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,145-166. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2003. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language,84,1-15.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2005. Embodied action in thought and language. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J. & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,225-247. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics,2-18. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2008. Metaphor and thought:the state of art. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.)., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 3-13. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.).2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. & Gerard J. Steen (eds.).1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond & Herbert Colston.1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics (6) 4,347-378.
Gibbs, Raymond, Paula Lenz Costa Lima & Edson Francozo.2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics 36,1189-1210.
Gibbs, Raymond, & Marcus Perlman.2006. The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,211-228. Berlin& New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Glucksberg, Sam.2001. Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Goatly, Andrew.1997. The Language of Metaphors. London &New York:Routledge.
Goddard, Cliff.2003. Thinking across languages and cultures:Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2):109-139.
Goldberg, Adele E..1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E..2006. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson & Michael J. Spivey (eds.).2007. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goossens, Louis.2002. Metaphtonymy:The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,349-377. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph.1997. Foundations of Meaning:Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Grady, Joseph.1997. THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4):267-290.
Grady, Joseph.1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor:correlation vs. resemblance. 1n Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, Joseph. 2005a. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1595-1614.
Grady, Joseph. 2005b. Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning.- Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 35-55. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph. 2007. Metaphor. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 188-213. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Grady, Joseph. 2008. `Superschemas' and the grammar of metaphorical mappings. In Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim & Mari Takada (eds.), Language in the Context of Uve, 339-360. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph, & Christopher Johnson. 2002. Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In Rene Dirven & Ralf P6rings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 533-554. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, & Seana Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 101-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, Joseph, Sarah Taub & Pamela Morgan. 1996. Primitive and compound metaphors. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Haser, Verena. 2005. Metaphor, Metonymy and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hampe, Beate (ed). 2005. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hanks, Patrick. 2006. Metaphoricity is gradable. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries(eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 17-35. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hansen, Chad.1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought:A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd.1995. Conceptual grammaticalization and prediction, In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.):Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, Berlin & New York,119-135.
Heine, Bernd.1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Frederike Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hilpert, Martin.2006. Keeping an eye on the data:Metonymies and their patterns. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,123-151. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Holland, Dorothy & Naomi Quinn (eds.).1987. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Adam Kilgarriff, Yicing Wu, Chih-Ming Chiu, Simon Smith, Pavel Rychly, Ming-Hong Bai & Keh-Jiann Chen.2005. Chinese sketch engine and the extraction of grammatical collocations. In the Proceedings of the Fourth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing,48-55. Jeju, Korea.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Ru-Ying Chang, & Shiang-Bin Lee.2004. Sinica BOW (Bilingual Ontological Wordnet):Integration of Bilingual WordNet and SUMO. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004). Lisbon. Portugal.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Siaw-Fong Chung, & Kathlee Ahrens.2006. An Ontology-based exploration of knowledge systems for metaphor. In K. Rajiv, R. Ramesh, and R. Sharman (eds.), Ontologies:A Handbook of Principles, Concepts and Applications in Information Systems, Volume 14, Springer.
Huang, Shuan-Fan.2002. Tsou is different:A cognitive perspective on language, emotion, and body. Cognitive Linguistics (13):167-186.
Jakel, Olaf.1995. The metaphorical conception of mind:"Mental activity is manipulation". In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World,197-229. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Janssen, Theo & Gisela Redeker (eds.).1999. Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo.2008. Much mouth much tongue:Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behaviour. Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2),241-282
Johnson, Christopher.1999. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of see. In Masako Hiraga, Chris Sinha, & Sherman Wilcox (eds.), Cultural, Typological, and Psychological Issuess in Cognitive Linguistics, 155-169. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johnson, Mark (ed).1981. Philosphical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff.2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3),245-263.
Johnson, Mark & Tim Rohrer.2007. We are live creatures:embodiment, American pragmatism, and the cognitive organism. In Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind:Volume 1:Embodiment, 17-54. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow.2000. Introduction. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer(eds.), Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Chu-Ren Huang, Pavel Rychly, Simon Smith & David Tugwell. 2005. Chinese word sketches. In ASIALEX 2005:Words in Asian Cultural Context, Singapore.
Kilgarriff, Adam & David. Tugwell.2001. WORD SKETCH:Extraction and Display of Significant Collocations for Lexicography. In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop COLLOCATION:Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation. Toulouse.32-38.
Kilgarriff, Adam & David. Tugwell.2002. Sketching words. In Marie-Helene Correard (ed.), Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. A Festschrift in Honour of B. T.S. Atkins,125-137. Euralex.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell.2004. The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of EURALEX, Lorient, France.
Koivisto-Alanko, Paivi & Heli Tissari.2006. Sense and sensibility:Rational thought versus emotion in metaphorical language. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,191-213. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koller, Veronika.2006. Of critical importance:Using electronic text corpora to study metaphor in business media discourse. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,237-266. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kornacki, Pawe.2001. Concepts of anger in Chinese. In Jean Harkins and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective,255-290. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A lexical approach to the study of concepts. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1990. Emotion Concepts. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1991. Happiness:A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6 (1),29-46.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1995. Metaphor and the folk understanding of anger. In James A. Russell, Jose-Miguel Fernandez-Dols, Anthony S. R. Manstead, & Jane C. J. Wellenkamp (eds.), Everyday Conceptions of Emotions:An Introduction to the Psychology, Anthropology, and Linguistics of Emotion,49-71. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1999. Metaphor:Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,167-188. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2003. Language, figurative thought, and cross-cultural comparison. Metaphor and Symbol 18:311-320.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2004. Introduction:Cultural variation in metaphor. European Journal of English Studies 8 (3),262-214.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2008a. Conceptual metaphor theory:Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6,168-184.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2008b. Metaphor and emotion. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought:380-396. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2010. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction (second edition). Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan & Gary B. Palmer.1999. Language and emotion concepts:What experientialists and social constructionists have in common. In Gary B. Palmer & Debra J. Occhi (eds.), Languages of Sentiment:cultural constructions of emotional substrates,237-262. Amsterdam & New York:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan, Gary Palmer, & Rene Dirven.2002. Language and emotion:The interplay of conceptualization with physiology and culture. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 133-159. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kovecses, Zoltan, & Giinter Radden.1998. Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic approach. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1):37-77'.
Kristiansen, Gitte, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kristiansen, Gitte, & Rene Dirven (eds.).2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics:Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social System. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics l: 39-74.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2"d edn., 202-251. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals don't. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 17-38. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Zoltan K6vecses. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, 195-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W.1994. Culture, cognition, and grammar. In Martin Puitz (ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict,25-53. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W..1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W..1999b. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology,13-59. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W..2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language,1-63. Stanford: CSLI.
Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Lee, David.2001. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Leezenberg, Michel.2001. Contexts of Metaphor. Oxford:Elsevier.
Liang, Mao-Cheng, Wen-Zhong Li & Jia-Jin Xu.2010. Using Corpora:a practical coursebook. Beijing:Foreign Language and Teaching Press.
Lindblom, Jessica & Tom Ziemke.2007. Embodiment and social interaction:A cognitive science perspective. In Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.)., Body, Language and Mind Volume 1:Embodiment,133-144. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Littlemore, Jeannette.2003. The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol,18,273-288.
Liu, Zhen-Qian.1999. Metaphorical categorization and conceptualization. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University (4),60-63.
Liu, Zhen-Qian & Xiao-Ying Shi.2002. Cultural and cognitive features of metaphor and foreign language teaching. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (2), 17-20.
Low, Graham.1999. Validating metaphor research projects. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor,48-65. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Low, Graham.2003. Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol,18 (4),239-354.
Ma, Wei-Yun & Chu-Ren Huang.2006. Uniform and effective tagging of a heterogeneous Giga-word Corpus. Presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa, Itlay.24-28 May, 2006.
Maalej, Zouhair.2004. Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An extended view of embodiment. Metaphor and Symbol,19(1),51-75.
Maalej, Zouhair.2007. The embodiment of fear expressions in Tunisian Arabic: Theoretical and practical implications. In Farzad Sharifian & Gary. B. Palmer (eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics,87-104. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Mandler, Jean M..1994. Precursors of linguistic knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 346,63-69.
Mandler, Jean M..2004. The Foundations of Mind:Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mandler, Jean M..2005. How to build a baby:Ⅲ. Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics,137-164. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Markert, Katja & Malvina Nissim.2002. Towards a corpus annotated for metonymies: the case of location names. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,1385-1392. Las Palmas, Canary Islands.
Markert, Katja & Malvina Nissim.2006. Metonymic proper names:a corpus-based account. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 152-174. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsuki, Keiko. 1995. Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, 137-151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross & Katherine Miller. 1993. Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database, In Proceedings of the fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Murphy, Gregory. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60, 173-204.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
Meyer, Charles. 2004. English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nerlich, Brigitte, Craig A. Hamilton, & Victoria Rowe. 2002. Conceptualising foot and mouth disease: The sociocultural role of metaphors, frames and narratives. Metaphorik.de, 2, 90-108.
Neumann, Christoph. 2001. Is metaphor universal? Cross-language evidence from German and Japanese. Metaphor and Symbol 16 (1 &2), 123-142.
Niemeier, Susanne. 2000. Straight from the heart-metonymic and metaphorical exploration. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 195-213. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niemeier, Susanne. 2008. To be in control: kind-hearted and cool-headed. The head-heart dichotomy in English. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages, 349-372. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niu, Bao-Yi. 2011. A Contrastive analysis of conceptualization in English and Chinese. Foreign Language Education (5), 1-7.
Ortony, Andrew (ed.).1993 [1979]. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ozcaliskan, Seyda.2003. Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective:A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol,18(3),189-228.
Packard, Jerome L..2004. The Morphology of Chinese:a linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Gary B.1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Palmer, Gary B..2003. Introduction. In Gary B. Palmer, Cliff Goddard, & Penny Lee (eds.), Special issue of Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2):97-108.
Palmer, Gary B..2006. Energy through fusion at last:Synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics. In Kristiansen, Gitte, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,263-304. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Palmer, Gary B..2007. Cognitive linguistics and Anthropological linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1045-1073. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe.2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 353-386. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe.2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,147-185. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden (eds.).1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg (eds.).2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg.2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.).2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 236-263. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Peirsman, Yves & Dirk Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3),269-316.
Pragglejaz Group 2007. MIP:A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1),1-39.
Putz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier, & Rene Dirven (eds).2001a. Applied Cognitive Linguistics I:Theory and Language Acquisition. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Putz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier, & Rene Dirven (eds).2001b. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅱ:Language Pedagogy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Quinn, Naomi.1987. Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn, (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought,173-192. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, Naomi.1991. The cultural basis of metaphor. In James W. Fernandez (ed.), Beyond Metaphor:the Theory of Tropes in Anthropology,56-93. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Quinn, Naomi, & Dorothy Holland.1987. Culture and cognition. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, 3-40. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radden, Gunter.2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.):Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,407-435. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, Gunter & Rene Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Radden, Gunter & Zoltan Kovecses.1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Gunter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought,17-59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Rakova, Marina.2002. The philosophy of embodied realism:A high price to pay? Cognitive Linguistics,13 (3),215--244.
Reddy, Michael.1993. The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164-201. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Ivor Armsrong.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press.
Riemer, Nick.2002. When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.):Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 379-406. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ritchie, David.2003. ARGUMENT IS WAR-Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol,18 (2), 125-146.
Ritchie, David.2006. Context and Connection in Metaphor. Basingstoke and New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Rohrer, Tim.2005. Image schemata in the brain. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics,165-196. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter
Rohrer, Tim.2006. Three dogmas of embodiment:Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,119-146. Berlin & New York:Mouton de , Gruyter.
Rohrer, Tim.2007a. Embodiment and experientialism. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,25-47. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, Tim.2007b. The body in space:Dimensions of embodiment. In Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind (Volume 1), Embodiment,339-377. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosch, Eleanor.1977. Human categorization. In N. Warren (ed.), Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. London:Academic Press.
Rosch, Eleanor.1981. Prototype classification and logical classification:the two systems. In E. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J..2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,109-132. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J.& M.Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.).2005. Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Rundell, Michael. (eds.).2002/2003. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford:Macmillan Publishers/Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Semino, Elena.2005. The metaphorical construction of complex domains:the case of speech activity in English. Metaphor and Symbol 20:35-70.
Semino, Elena.2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Semino, Elena., John Heywood, & Mick Short.2004. Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics,36,1271-1294.
Sharifian, Farzad.2003. On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3 (3):187-207.
Sharifian, Farzad.2008. Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation, and language. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind. Vol.2:Sociocultural Situatedness, 109-136. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.).2007. Applied Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Sharifian, Farzad, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu & Susanne Niemeier (eds.).2008. Culture, Body and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier.2008. Culture and language:looking for the "mind" inside the body. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures, 3-23. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Shore, Bradd.1996. Culture in Mind:cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shu, Ding-Fang.2009. Cognitive linguistics in China in the past two decades:review and reflection. Modern Foreign Languages (3),248-256.
Sinha, Chris.1999. Grounding, mapping, and acts of meaning. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology,223-255. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sinha, Chris & Kristine Jensen de Lopez.2000. Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1):17-41.
Steen, Gerard J..1999. From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,51-11. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard J..2002. Metaphor identification:A cognitive approach. Style 36 (3): 386-407.
Steen, Gerard J..2004. Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?, Journal of Pragmatics 36 (7):1295-1313.
Steen, Gerard J..2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard J..2008. The paradox of metaphor:Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol,23,213-241.
Steen, Gerard J..2009. From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Geert Brone & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics,197-226. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, & Tina Krennmayr. 201 Oa. Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4): 765-796.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, & Trijntje Pasma. 2010b. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. HAPPINESS in English and German: A metaphorical-pattern analysis. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind, 137-149. Stanford: CSLI.
Stefanowitsch , Anatol. 2006a. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 1-16. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006b. Words and their metaphors: a corpus-based approach. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonym, 63-105. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch , Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2006. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Strauss, Claudia, & Naomi Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Summers, Della (eds.). 2003. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Sun, Chao-Fen. 2006. Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talebinejad, M. Reza, & H. Vahid Dastjerdi. (2005). A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: When owls are not wise! Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 133-150.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems; Vol. 2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Taylor, John.1995. Linguistic Categorisation:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. (second edition). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John.2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tilley, Christopher.Y..1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Tomasello, Michael.1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, Michael.2003. Constructing a Language:a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Turner, Mark.1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,133-145. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jorg Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York:Longman Limited.
Violi, Patrizia.2008. Beyond the body:Towards a full embodied semiosis. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind Vol.2:Sociocultural Situatedness,53-76. Berlin &New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, Wen-Bin.2001. The mental structures of spatial metaphorization of "xin" (heart) in Chinese. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages (1).
Wierzbicka, Anna.1992. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition:Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configuration. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna.1997. Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna.2005. Empirical universals of language as a basis for the study of other human universals and as a tool for exploring cross-cultural differences. Ethos 33:256-291.
Wilson, Margaret.2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9 (4):625-636.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.
Wolk, Daniel, P. (2008). Expressions concerning the `heart' in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic in relation to a Classical Syriac model of the temperaments. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures, 267-317. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Xu, Sheng-Huan. 2005. Linguistic research: description and generalization. Foreign Languages in China (1), 26-28.
Yang, Xiao-Jun. 2006. Survey and prospect of China's corpus-based research. In Andrew Wilson, Dawn Archer & Paul Rayson (eds.), Corpus Linguistics Around the World, 219-233. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Ye, Zheng-Dao. 2001. An inquiry into "sadness" in Chinese. In Jean Harkins and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective, 359-404. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 59-92.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective From Chinese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yu, Ning. 2000. Figurative uses of finger and palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 159-175.
Yu, Ning. 2001. What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9, 1-36.
Yu, Ning. 2002. Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. In N. Enfield & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), The Body in Description of Emotion: Crosslinguistic Studies. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10, 333-358.
Yu, Ning. 2003a. Chinese metaphors of thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 141-165
Yu, Ning. 2003b. The bodily dimension of meaning in Chinese: What do we do and mean with "hands"?. In Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and no n-Indo-European Languages, 330-354. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning. 2003c. Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18:13-31.
Yu, Ning.2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36:663-686.
Yu, Ning.2007. Heart and cognition in ancient Chinese philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7:27-47.
Yu, Ning.2008a. Metaphor from body and culture. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,247-261. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Yu, Ning.2008b. The Chinese heart as the central faculty of cognition. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures,131-168. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning.2008c. The relationship between metaphor, body, and culture. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind Vol.2, Sociocultural Situatedness,387-407. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning.2009. The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhu, Zu-Yan (ed.).2002. Hanyu Chengyu Dacidian (Chinese Dictionary of Idioms). Beijing:Zhonghua Shuju.
Ziemke, Tom.2003. What's that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.).2007. Body, Language and Mind(Volume 1), Embodiment. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Zinken, Jorg, lina Hellsten, & Brigitte Nerlich.2008. Discourse metaphors. In Frank, Roslyn M., Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.), Body, Language and Mind (Volume 2):Sociocultural Situatedness,363-385. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhang, Jian-Li.2005. Polysemous network of xin (heart) in Chinese:metonymy and metaphor. Rhetoric Learning (1),40-43.
Zhang, Jian-Li.2006. An English-Chinese Contrastive Study on Polysemous Networks of HEART. Journal of Zhejiang University (3),161-168.
Zhang, Ke-Ding.2005. Three major hypotheses in Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Research (1),106-109.
Zlatev, Jordan.1997. Situated Embodiment:studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm:Gotab Press.
Ahrens, Kathleen.2010. Mapping Principles for Conceptual Metaphors. In Low, Graham, Zazie Todd, Alice Deignan & Lynne Cameron (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World,185-207. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung & Chu-Ren Huang.2003. Conceptual Metaphors:Ontology-based Representation and Corpora Driven Mapping Principles. In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language,35-41. Sapporo, Japan.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung & Chu-Ren Huang.2004. From Lexical Semantics to Conceptual Metaphors:Mapping Principle Verification with WordNet and SUMO, in Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), eds. J. Donghong, L. K. Teng, and H. Wang, Singapore,99-106.
Alverson, Hoyt.1994. Semantics and Experience:Universal Metaphors of Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ameka. Felix.2002. Cultural scripting of body parts for emotions:On 'jealousy' and related emotions in Ewe. In Nick Enfield and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.). Pragmatics and Cognition, special issue on The body in description of emotion, 10 (1-2):27-55.
Arnold, Magda.1960. Emotion and Personality. New York:Columbia University Press.
Bacz, Barbara.2001. What's in the head? Metaphorical expressions in Polish and English. LACUS Forum XXVII,63-74.
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.) 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2000a. Introduction:the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,1-28. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2000b. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,31-58. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2001. On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors:case studies and proposed methodology. In Martin Putz, Susanne Niemeier and Rene Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II:Language Pedagogy,117-146. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,207-277. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio.2003. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:An analysis and a few modest proposals. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language:Studies in honor of Giinter Radden,223-255. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Barcelona, Antonio.2004. Metonymy behind grammar:The motivation of the seemingly irregular grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In Gunter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation,357-374. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, Reka.2009. Meaning-making:The bigger picture --- An interview with Zoltan Kovecses. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,7,291-300.
Black, Max.1962. Models and Metaphors:studies in language and philosophy. Ithacas:Cornell University Press.
Black, Max.1993. More about metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,2nd edn.,19-42. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Boers, Frank.1999. When a bodily source domain becomes prominent. In Raymond W. Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,47-56. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Boers, Frank.2003. Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol,18,231-238.
Boers, Frank & Murielle Demecheleer.1997. A few metaphorical models in (Western) economic discourse. In Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda R. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics,115-129. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Boers, Frank, Murielle Demecheleer, & June Eyckmans.2004. Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies,8,375-388.
Brugman, Claudia.1990. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 257-66.
Cameron, Lynne.1999. Operationalising'metaphor' for applied linguistic research. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, 3-28. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Lynne.2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London:Continuum.
Cameron, Lynne.2007. Confrontation or complementarity? Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,5, 107-135.
Cameron, Lynne.2008. Metaphor and talk. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,197-211. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Lynne& Alice Deignan.2003. Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol,18,149-160.
Cameron, Lynne & Alice Deignan.2006. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4),671-690.
Cameron, Lynne & Graham Low (eds.). 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CCD. 2002. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian [Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese-English Edition)]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2003. Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,289-310.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Charted s-Black, Jonathan & Timothy Ennis. 2001. A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes 20: 249-266.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens & Ya-hui Sung. 2003. STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A corpus-based, comparative study of Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish. Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), Singapore, 124-133.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathlee Ahrens, & Chu-Ren Huang. 2004. Using WordNet and SUMO to determine source domains of conceptual metaphors. In D.H. Ji, K.T. Lua Kim, and H. Wang (eds.), Recent Advances in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), 91-98. Singapore: COLIPS.
Cienki, Alan. 1999. Models as profiles and bases. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 189-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cienki, Alan and Cornelia Muller. 2008. Metaphor, gesture and thought. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 483-501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H.. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, Timothy C. & William Croft.1997. Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science 21:247-82.
Clausner, Timothy C. & William Croft.1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 1:1-13.
Crisp, Peter.2002. Metaphorical propositions:a rationale. Language and Literature, 11(1),7-16.
Croft, William.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4):335-370.
Croft, William.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comments on Peirsman and Geeraerts, "Metonymy as a prototypical category". Cognitive Linguistics,17(3), 317-326.
Croft, William.2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics,395-420. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
D'Andrade, Roy.1987. A folk model of the mind. In Dorothy Holland, & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought,112-148. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Mark.2011-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available on line at:http://www.americancorpus.org/.
Deignan, Alice.1995. Collins Cobuild English Guides 7:Metaphor. London:Harper Collins Publishers.
Deignan, Alice.1999. Corpus-based research into metaphor. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor,177-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, Alice.2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture:An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol,18,255-271.
Deignan, Alice.2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Deignan, Alice.2006. The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,106-122. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Deignan, Alice.2008. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,280-294. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, Alice, Danuta Gabrys & Agnieszka Solska.1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal,51(4), 352-360.
Deignan, Alice & Liz Potter.2004. A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 36:1231-1252.
Dirven, Rene 2002 a. Introduction. In:Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,1-38. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene.2002 b. Metonymy and metaphor:Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,75--111. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene.2005. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,17-68. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene, Frank Polzenhagen, & Hans-Georg Wolf.2007. Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse analysis. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1222-1240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dirven, Rene, Hans-Georg Wolf, and Frank Polzenhagen.2007. Cognitive linguistics and cultural studies. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1203-1221. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dirven, Rene & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.).2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (Second Revised Edition). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Dirven, Rene & Ralf Porings (eds.).2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, Rene, Roslyn M. Frank & Martin Piitz (eds.).2003. Cognitive Models in Language and Thought:Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Emanatian, Michele.1995. Metaphor and the expression of emotion:The value of cross-cultural perspectives. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(3),163-182.
Emanatian, Michele.1999. Congruence by degree:On the relation between metaphor and cultural models. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,205-218. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan.2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen & Jorg Zinken (eds).2007. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London:Equinox Publishing Company.
Fauconnier, Gilles.1999. Methods and generalizations. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology, 95-127. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science,22(2),133-187.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York:Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.2008. Rethinking metaphor. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,53-66. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane.1998. WordNet:An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feyaerts, Kurt.2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis:Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 59-78. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 2006. Frame Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 373-400.Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Foolen, Ad. 2008. The heart as a source of semiosis: The case of Dutch. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages, 373-394. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, Charles. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza lbanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, 379-402. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fortescue, Michael.2001.Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1): 15-39.
Frank, Roslyn M.. 2008. Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.). 2008, Body, Language and Mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness, 1-18. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frank, Roslyn M., Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.). 2008. Body, Language and Mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In Rene Dirven & Ralf P6rings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 435-465. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Rene Dirven, Roslyn Frank, & Martin Piitz (eds.), Cognitive Models in Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 25-68. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2005. Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 163-189. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006a. Introduction:A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Lingu stics:Basic Readings,1-28. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006b. Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,21-49. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Caroline Gevaert.2008. Hearts and (angry) minds in Old English. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages,319-347. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens.2007. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.),3-21. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.).2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Stefan Grondelaers.1995. Looking back at anger:Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World,153-79. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentner, Dedre.1988. Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift. Child Development 59:47-59.
Gentner, Dedre.2001. Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. In M. Gattis (ed.), Spatial Schemas in Abstract Thought,203-222. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Gevaert, Caroline.2001. Anger in Old and Middle English:A'hot'topic? Belgian Essays on Language and Literature,89-101.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition 61, 309-319.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,145-166. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2003. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language,84,1-15.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2005. Embodied action in thought and language. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J. & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,225-247. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics,2-18. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr..2008. Metaphor and thought:the state of art. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.)., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 3-13. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.).2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. & Gerard J. Steen (eds.).1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond & Herbert Colston.1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics (6) 4,347-378.
Gibbs, Raymond, Paula Lenz Costa Lima & Edson Francozo.2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics 36,1189-1210.
Gibbs, Raymond, & Marcus Perlman.2006. The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,211-228. Berlin& New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Glucksberg, Sam.2001. Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Goatly, Andrew.1997. The Language of Metaphors. London &New York:Routledge.
Goddard, Cliff.2003. Thinking across languages and cultures:Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2):109-139.
Goldberg, Adele E..1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E..2006. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson & Michael J. Spivey (eds.).2007. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goossens, Louis.2002. Metaphtonymy:The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,349-377. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph.1997. Foundations of Meaning:Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Grady, Joseph.1997. THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4):267-290.
Grady, Joseph.1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor:correlation vs. resemblance. 1n Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, Joseph. 2005a. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1595-1614.
Grady, Joseph. 2005b. Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning.- Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 35-55. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph. 2007. Metaphor. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 188-213. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Grady, Joseph. 2008. `Superschemas' and the grammar of metaphorical mappings. In Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim & Mari Takada (eds.), Language in the Context of Uve, 339-360. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph, & Christopher Johnson. 2002. Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In Rene Dirven & Ralf P6rings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 533-554. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, & Seana Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 101-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, Joseph, Sarah Taub & Pamela Morgan. 1996. Primitive and compound metaphors. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Haser, Verena. 2005. Metaphor, Metonymy and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hampe, Beate (ed). 2005. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hanks, Patrick. 2006. Metaphoricity is gradable. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries(eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 17-35. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hansen, Chad.1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought:A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd.1995. Conceptual grammaticalization and prediction, In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.):Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, Berlin & New York,119-135.
Heine, Bernd.1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Frederike Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hilpert, Martin.2006. Keeping an eye on the data:Metonymies and their patterns. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,123-151. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Holland, Dorothy & Naomi Quinn (eds.).1987. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Adam Kilgarriff, Yicing Wu, Chih-Ming Chiu, Simon Smith, Pavel Rychly, Ming-Hong Bai & Keh-Jiann Chen.2005. Chinese sketch engine and the extraction of grammatical collocations. In the Proceedings of the Fourth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing,48-55. Jeju, Korea.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Ru-Ying Chang, & Shiang-Bin Lee.2004. Sinica BOW (Bilingual Ontological Wordnet):Integration of Bilingual WordNet and SUMO. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004). Lisbon. Portugal.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Siaw-Fong Chung, & Kathlee Ahrens.2006. An Ontology-based exploration of knowledge systems for metaphor. In K. Rajiv, R. Ramesh, and R. Sharman (eds.), Ontologies:A Handbook of Principles, Concepts and Applications in Information Systems, Volume 14, Springer.
Huang, Shuan-Fan.2002. Tsou is different:A cognitive perspective on language, emotion, and body. Cognitive Linguistics (13):167-186.
Jakel, Olaf.1995. The metaphorical conception of mind:"Mental activity is manipulation". In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World,197-229. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Janssen, Theo & Gisela Redeker (eds.).1999. Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo.2008. Much mouth much tongue:Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behaviour. Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2),241-282
Johnson, Christopher.1999. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of see. In Masako Hiraga, Chris Sinha, & Sherman Wilcox (eds.), Cultural, Typological, and Psychological Issuess in Cognitive Linguistics, 155-169. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johnson, Mark (ed).1981. Philosphical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff.2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3),245-263.
Johnson, Mark & Tim Rohrer.2007. We are live creatures:embodiment, American pragmatism, and the cognitive organism. In Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind:Volume 1:Embodiment, 17-54. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow.2000. Introduction. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer(eds.), Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Chu-Ren Huang, Pavel Rychly, Simon Smith & David Tugwell. 2005. Chinese word sketches. In ASIALEX 2005:Words in Asian Cultural Context, Singapore.
Kilgarriff, Adam & David. Tugwell.2001. WORD SKETCH:Extraction and Display of Significant Collocations for Lexicography. In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop COLLOCATION:Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation. Toulouse.32-38.
Kilgarriff, Adam & David. Tugwell.2002. Sketching words. In Marie-Helene Correard (ed.), Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. A Festschrift in Honour of B. T.S. Atkins,125-137. Euralex.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell.2004. The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of EURALEX, Lorient, France.
Koivisto-Alanko, Paivi & Heli Tissari.2006. Sense and sensibility:Rational thought versus emotion in metaphorical language. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,191-213. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koller, Veronika.2006. Of critical importance:Using electronic text corpora to study metaphor in business media discourse. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy,237-266. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kornacki, Pawe.2001. Concepts of anger in Chinese. In Jean Harkins and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective,255-290. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A lexical approach to the study of concepts. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1990. Emotion Concepts. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1991. Happiness:A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6 (1),29-46.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1995. Metaphor and the folk understanding of anger. In James A. Russell, Jose-Miguel Fernandez-Dols, Anthony S. R. Manstead, & Jane C. J. Wellenkamp (eds.), Everyday Conceptions of Emotions:An Introduction to the Psychology, Anthropology, and Linguistics of Emotion,49-71. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kovecses, Zoltan.1999. Metaphor:Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,167-188. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2003. Language, figurative thought, and cross-cultural comparison. Metaphor and Symbol 18:311-320.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2004. Introduction:Cultural variation in metaphor. European Journal of English Studies 8 (3),262-214.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2005. Metaphor in Culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2008a. Conceptual metaphor theory:Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6,168-184.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2008b. Metaphor and emotion. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought:380-396. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan.2010. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction (second edition). Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Zoltan & Gary B. Palmer.1999. Language and emotion concepts:What experientialists and social constructionists have in common. In Gary B. Palmer & Debra J. Occhi (eds.), Languages of Sentiment:cultural constructions of emotional substrates,237-262. Amsterdam & New York:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan, Gary Palmer, & Rene Dirven.2002. Language and emotion:The interplay of conceptualization with physiology and culture. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 133-159. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kovecses, Zoltan, & Giinter Radden.1998. Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic approach. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1):37-77'.
Kristiansen, Gitte, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Kristiansen, Gitte, & Rene Dirven (eds.).2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics:Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social System. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics l: 39-74.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2"d edn., 202-251. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals don't. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 17-38. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Zoltan K6vecses. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, 195-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W.1994. Culture, cognition, and grammar. In Martin Puitz (ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict,25-53. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W..1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W..1999b. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology,13-59. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W..2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language,1-63. Stanford: CSLI.
Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Lee, David.2001. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Leezenberg, Michel.2001. Contexts of Metaphor. Oxford:Elsevier.
Liang, Mao-Cheng, Wen-Zhong Li & Jia-Jin Xu.2010. Using Corpora:a practical coursebook. Beijing:Foreign Language and Teaching Press.
Lindblom, Jessica & Tom Ziemke.2007. Embodiment and social interaction:A cognitive science perspective. In Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.)., Body, Language and Mind Volume 1:Embodiment,133-144. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Littlemore, Jeannette.2003. The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol,18,273-288.
Liu, Zhen-Qian.1999. Metaphorical categorization and conceptualization. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University (4),60-63.
Liu, Zhen-Qian & Xiao-Ying Shi.2002. Cultural and cognitive features of metaphor and foreign language teaching. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (2), 17-20.
Low, Graham.1999. Validating metaphor research projects. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor,48-65. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Low, Graham.2003. Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol,18 (4),239-354.
Ma, Wei-Yun & Chu-Ren Huang.2006. Uniform and effective tagging of a heterogeneous Giga-word Corpus. Presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa, Itlay.24-28 May, 2006.
Maalej, Zouhair.2004. Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An extended view of embodiment. Metaphor and Symbol,19(1),51-75.
Maalej, Zouhair.2007. The embodiment of fear expressions in Tunisian Arabic: Theoretical and practical implications. In Farzad Sharifian & Gary. B. Palmer (eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics,87-104. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Mandler, Jean M..1994. Precursors of linguistic knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 346,63-69.
Mandler, Jean M..2004. The Foundations of Mind:Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mandler, Jean M..2005. How to build a baby:Ⅲ. Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics,137-164. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Markert, Katja & Malvina Nissim.2002. Towards a corpus annotated for metonymies: the case of location names. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,1385-1392. Las Palmas, Canary Islands.
Markert, Katja & Malvina Nissim.2006. Metonymic proper names:a corpus-based account. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 152-174. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsuki, Keiko. 1995. Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, 137-151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross & Katherine Miller. 1993. Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database, In Proceedings of the fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Murphy, Gregory. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60, 173-204.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
Meyer, Charles. 2004. English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nerlich, Brigitte, Craig A. Hamilton, & Victoria Rowe. 2002. Conceptualising foot and mouth disease: The sociocultural role of metaphors, frames and narratives. Metaphorik.de, 2, 90-108.
Neumann, Christoph. 2001. Is metaphor universal? Cross-language evidence from German and Japanese. Metaphor and Symbol 16 (1 &2), 123-142.
Niemeier, Susanne. 2000. Straight from the heart-metonymic and metaphorical exploration. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 195-213. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niemeier, Susanne. 2008. To be in control: kind-hearted and cool-headed. The head-heart dichotomy in English. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages, 349-372. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niu, Bao-Yi. 2011. A Contrastive analysis of conceptualization in English and Chinese. Foreign Language Education (5), 1-7.
Ortony, Andrew (ed.).1993 [1979]. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ozcaliskan, Seyda.2003. Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective:A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol,18(3),189-228.
Packard, Jerome L..2004. The Morphology of Chinese:a linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Gary B.1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Palmer, Gary B..2003. Introduction. In Gary B. Palmer, Cliff Goddard, & Penny Lee (eds.), Special issue of Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2):97-108.
Palmer, Gary B..2006. Energy through fusion at last:Synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics. In Kristiansen, Gitte, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,263-304. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Palmer, Gary B..2007. Cognitive linguistics and Anthropological linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,1045-1073. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe.2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 353-386. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe.2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,147-185. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden (eds.).1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg (eds.).2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg.2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.).2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 236-263. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Peirsman, Yves & Dirk Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3),269-316.
Pragglejaz Group 2007. MIP:A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1),1-39.
Putz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier, & Rene Dirven (eds).2001a. Applied Cognitive Linguistics I:Theory and Language Acquisition. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Putz, Martin, Susanne Niemeier, & Rene Dirven (eds).2001b. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅱ:Language Pedagogy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Quinn, Naomi.1987. Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn, (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought,173-192. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, Naomi.1991. The cultural basis of metaphor. In James W. Fernandez (ed.), Beyond Metaphor:the Theory of Tropes in Anthropology,56-93. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Quinn, Naomi, & Dorothy Holland.1987. Culture and cognition. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, 3-40. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radden, Gunter.2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.):Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,407-435. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, Gunter & Rene Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Radden, Gunter & Zoltan Kovecses.1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Gunter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought,17-59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Rakova, Marina.2002. The philosophy of embodied realism:A high price to pay? Cognitive Linguistics,13 (3),215--244.
Reddy, Michael.1993. The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164-201. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Ivor Armsrong.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press.
Riemer, Nick.2002. When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy. In Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings (eds.):Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 379-406. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ritchie, David.2003. ARGUMENT IS WAR-Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol,18 (2), 125-146.
Ritchie, David.2006. Context and Connection in Metaphor. Basingstoke and New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Rohrer, Tim.2005. Image schemata in the brain. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics,165-196. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter
Rohrer, Tim.2006. Three dogmas of embodiment:Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven, & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives,119-146. Berlin & New York:Mouton de , Gruyter.
Rohrer, Tim.2007a. Embodiment and experientialism. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,25-47. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, Tim.2007b. The body in space:Dimensions of embodiment. In Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind (Volume 1), Embodiment,339-377. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosch, Eleanor.1977. Human categorization. In N. Warren (ed.), Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. London:Academic Press.
Rosch, Eleanor.1981. Prototype classification and logical classification:the two systems. In E. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J..2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,109-132. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J.& M.Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.).2005. Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Rundell, Michael. (eds.).2002/2003. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford:Macmillan Publishers/Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Semino, Elena.2005. The metaphorical construction of complex domains:the case of speech activity in English. Metaphor and Symbol 20:35-70.
Semino, Elena.2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Semino, Elena., John Heywood, & Mick Short.2004. Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics,36,1271-1294.
Sharifian, Farzad.2003. On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3 (3):187-207.
Sharifian, Farzad.2008. Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation, and language. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind. Vol.2:Sociocultural Situatedness, 109-136. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.).2007. Applied Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Sharifian, Farzad, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu & Susanne Niemeier (eds.).2008. Culture, Body and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Berlin & NewYork:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier.2008. Culture and language:looking for the "mind" inside the body. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures, 3-23. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Shore, Bradd.1996. Culture in Mind:cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shu, Ding-Fang.2009. Cognitive linguistics in China in the past two decades:review and reflection. Modern Foreign Languages (3),248-256.
Sinha, Chris.1999. Grounding, mapping, and acts of meaning. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology,223-255. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Sinha, Chris & Kristine Jensen de Lopez.2000. Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1):17-41.
Steen, Gerard J..1999. From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,51-11. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard J..2002. Metaphor identification:A cognitive approach. Style 36 (3): 386-407.
Steen, Gerard J..2004. Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?, Journal of Pragmatics 36 (7):1295-1313.
Steen, Gerard J..2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard J..2008. The paradox of metaphor:Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol,23,213-241.
Steen, Gerard J..2009. From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Geert Brone & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics,197-226. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, & Tina Krennmayr. 201 Oa. Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4): 765-796.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, & Trijntje Pasma. 2010b. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. HAPPINESS in English and German: A metaphorical-pattern analysis. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind, 137-149. Stanford: CSLI.
Stefanowitsch , Anatol. 2006a. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 1-16. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006b. Words and their metaphors: a corpus-based approach. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonym, 63-105. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch , Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2006. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Strauss, Claudia, & Naomi Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Summers, Della (eds.). 2003. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Sun, Chao-Fen. 2006. Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talebinejad, M. Reza, & H. Vahid Dastjerdi. (2005). A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: When owls are not wise! Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 133-150.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems; Vol. 2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Taylor, John.1995. Linguistic Categorisation:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. (second edition). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John.2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tilley, Christopher.Y..1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Tomasello, Michael.1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, Michael.2003. Constructing a Language:a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Turner, Mark.1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier.2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective,133-145. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jorg Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York:Longman Limited.
Violi, Patrizia.2008. Beyond the body:Towards a full embodied semiosis. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind Vol.2:Sociocultural Situatedness,53-76. Berlin &New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, Wen-Bin.2001. The mental structures of spatial metaphorization of "xin" (heart) in Chinese. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages (1).
Wierzbicka, Anna.1992. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition:Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configuration. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna.1997. Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna.2005. Empirical universals of language as a basis for the study of other human universals and as a tool for exploring cross-cultural differences. Ethos 33:256-291.
Wilson, Margaret.2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9 (4):625-636.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.
Wolk, Daniel, P. (2008). Expressions concerning the `heart' in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic in relation to a Classical Syriac model of the temperaments. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures, 267-317. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Xu, Sheng-Huan. 2005. Linguistic research: description and generalization. Foreign Languages in China (1), 26-28.
Yang, Xiao-Jun. 2006. Survey and prospect of China's corpus-based research. In Andrew Wilson, Dawn Archer & Paul Rayson (eds.), Corpus Linguistics Around the World, 219-233. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Ye, Zheng-Dao. 2001. An inquiry into "sadness" in Chinese. In Jean Harkins and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective, 359-404. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 59-92.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective From Chinese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yu, Ning. 2000. Figurative uses of finger and palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 159-175.
Yu, Ning. 2001. What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9, 1-36.
Yu, Ning. 2002. Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. In N. Enfield & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), The Body in Description of Emotion: Crosslinguistic Studies. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10, 333-358.
Yu, Ning. 2003a. Chinese metaphors of thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 141-165
Yu, Ning. 2003b. The bodily dimension of meaning in Chinese: What do we do and mean with "hands"?. In Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and no n-Indo-European Languages, 330-354. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning. 2003c. Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18:13-31.
Yu, Ning.2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36:663-686.
Yu, Ning.2007. Heart and cognition in ancient Chinese philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7:27-47.
Yu, Ning.2008a. Metaphor from body and culture. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought,247-261. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.
Yu, Ning.2008b. The Chinese heart as the central faculty of cognition. In Farzad Sharifian, Rene Dirven, Ning Yu, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language:Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Cultures,131-168. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning.2008c. The relationship between metaphor, body, and culture. In Roslyn M. Frank, Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernardez (eds.), Body, Language, and Mind Vol.2, Sociocultural Situatedness,387-407. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, Ning.2009. The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhu, Zu-Yan (ed.).2002. Hanyu Chengyu Dacidian (Chinese Dictionary of Idioms). Beijing:Zhonghua Shuju.
Ziemke, Tom.2003. What's that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds.).2007. Body, Language and Mind(Volume 1), Embodiment. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Zinken, Jorg, lina Hellsten, & Brigitte Nerlich.2008. Discourse metaphors. In Frank, Roslyn M., Rene Dirven, Tom Ziemke & Enrique Berna'rdez (eds.), Body, Language and Mind (Volume 2):Sociocultural Situatedness,363-385. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhang, Jian-Li.2005. Polysemous network of xin (heart) in Chinese:metonymy and metaphor. Rhetoric Learning (1),40-43.
Zhang, Jian-Li.2006. An English-Chinese Contrastive Study on Polysemous Networks of HEART. Journal of Zhejiang University (3),161-168.
Zhang, Ke-Ding.2005. Three major hypotheses in Cognitive Linguistics. Foreign Language Research (1),106-109.
Zlatev, Jordan.1997. Situated Embodiment:studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm:Gotab Press.