语法隐喻的语用功能研究
|
摘要
二十世纪以前的两千多年里,人们主要从修辞学的角度对隐喻进行研究。20世纪30年代以来,隐喻引起许多学者的注意,哲学家、符号学家、心理学家和语言学家分别从不同角度、不同方面对隐喻进行了研究。其中,韩礼德在其对系统功能语法的阐述中,提出了词汇隐喻和语法隐喻的区分。语法隐喻的提出,意味着隐喻不仅仅发生在词汇层面上,而且发生在词汇语法层面上。
本文试对词汇语法层面上的现象进行分析,进一步揭示语法隐喻的性质及其在大学英语中的语用功能。全文包括导言、结论及四章正文。导言主要回顾了传统的隐喻研究理论,讨论当今隐喻的发展趋势,并提出了隐喻研究的一个新的领域-语法隐喻。
第一章是对隐喻的纵览。隐喻原是一种传统修辞手段。随着认知科学与语言学的发展,国内外对隐喻有了更深刻地认识。认知语言学家莱考夫和约翰逊认为隐喻在日常生活中无所不在,并提出了著名的概念隐喻。而韩礼德则在系统功能语法理论的框架下提出了语法隐喻理论。他首先提出了三大元功能,即概念功能,人际功能和语篇功能。根据功能语法,语言分三个层次:语义层,词汇语法层和音系层,三个层次之间的关系是“实现”的关系,在实现的过程中出现了非一致性的实现关系,即跨域转换,产生出语法隐喻现象。因此,韩礼德根据语言的元功能理论,即语言具有概念元功能,人际元功能和语篇元功能的理论,把语法隐喻划分为概念隐喻,人际隐喻。
第二章讨论概念语法隐喻的语用功能。在概念隐喻中韩礼德显示一个属于概念元功能的及物性。及物性是一个语义系统,其作用是把人们在现实世界中的所见所闻、所作所为分成若干种“过程”,即将经验通过语法进行范畴化,并指明与各种过程有关的“参与者”和“环境成分”。韩礼德认为,人们可以通过及物性系统把人类经验分成六种不同的过程。随着过程的转换,各功能成分可以相互隐喻化。概念隐喻产生的另一种方式是名词化。韩礼德认为,名词化是构成概念隐喻最有力的手段。它把表示过程的动词和表示性质的形容词转换成名词,这些名词在小句中起过程和属性的作用,而在名词词组中表示物。也就是说,小句形式被转化成一个名词词组,整个名词词组在新的隐喻式小句中充当一个语法成分。概念语法隐喻的语用功能在阅读中得到充分的体现,通过对其在抽象语篇中的分析,帮助学生解决名词化问题,进而提高学生的阅读能力。
第三章研究人际语法隐喻的语用功能。人际功能是通过语气和情态这两个系统来体现的。语气系统和情态系统同样存在语法隐喻现象。系统功能语法将语气分为直陈语气和祈使语气,直陈语气又可进一步分为陈述语气和疑问语气。这三种语气的基本功能是:陈述语气体现陈述功能;疑问语气体现疑问功能;祈使语气体现提供和命令功能。然而,语气与言语功能之间并非一一对应的关系。一种言语功能可以由不同的语气来体现,一种语气也可以体现不同的言语功能。比如说,陈述语气除了体现陈述功能以外,还可以用来表示提问和请求;请求除了用祈使语气表示以外,疑问语气同样可以实现该功能。这类语气变异现象,即从一种语气域向另一种语气转移,就产生了语气隐喻。情态系统表达讲话者的观点和态度。情态意义大都通过情态动词、情态副词来表达。这就是情态的一致式表达。但情态还可以从主观和客观这两个角度来表达,韩礼德将其称作情态的取向,并把取向分为四种:明确主观、非明确主观明确客观、非明确客观。韩礼德指出,明确主观和明确客观都是隐喻性的。另外,名词化是产生情态隐喻的又一个途径。在听力和口语中普遍存在人际语法隐喻的语用功能。通过对人际语法隐喻的语用功能的分析,使学生能够听懂句子的隐含意义,并能够在不同的语境使用正确的表达。
第四章分析篇章隐喻的语法隐喻功能。韩礼德(1985)在他的语法隐喻中没有包含篇章隐喻。在所有关于语法隐喻的文献中对于篇章隐喻也没有明确的定义,一些学者认为,篇章隐喻可能是基于语言三大功能假设而来的,即概念隐喻,人际隐喻和篇章隐喻。关于篇章隐喻,学者们各持一词。主位述位结构和信息结构是篇章隐喻中很重要的概念。主位是指信息的出发点。述位是话语的核心内容。主位-述位是非标志性的,也就是一致式,述位-主位是标志性的,也就是隐喻式。已知信息是指在听者脑海里已存在的;新信息是指即将在语篇中出现的。马丁认为,有两种篇章隐喻,隐喻主位和隐喻信息。连贯与衔接是形成语篇的重要手段,其中语篇隐喻的语用功能便是连贯衔接,因此语篇隐喻对学生的写作具有重要意义。
在结论部分中,通过对语法隐喻在听、说、读、写方面语用功能的研究的阐述,进一步证明培养学生语法隐喻意识的重要性。语法隐喻理论对于很多领域的研究都具有重要意义。本论文对语法隐喻的分析和应用还不够全面,仍有很多没有涉及到,在以后学习工作中会对其进一步完善。
This thesis tries to study metaphor from the lexicogrammatical perspective, further announcing to public the properties and pragmatic functions of grammatical metaphor in college English. This thesis is composed of six parts, including an introduction, a conclusion and four chapters.
Introduction looks back at the traditional metaphor theories, and talks about the development trend of modern metaphor research, putting forward a new kind of aspect of metaphor study, namely the grammatical metaphor. Chapter one takes a panoramic view to the metaphor. Originally metaphor was only considered as a kind of traditional rhetoric means. Later, cognitive linguists Lakoff &Johnson put forward the conceptual metaphor. While Halliday put forward grammatical metaphor theories under the frame of the systemic functional grammar theory.
Chapter two expounds the pragmatic functions of ideational metaphor. Halliday believed that people could divide mankind's experience into six kinds of different processes. Along with the conversion of processes, each functional component can mutually be metaphorized. Nominalization is another method to generate ideational metaphor. Finally, the pragmatic functions of ideational metaphor in reading are fully expounded.
Chapter three expounds the pragmatic functions of interpersonal metaphor. Interpersonal function is realized by mood system and modality system. Interpersonal metaphor could take place in mood system and modality system. The variant of mood, that is, from one sub-domain of mood to another sub-domain of mood generates metaphors of mood.
Modality is typically expressed through modal verbs and adjuncts or the combination of the two. Metaphors of modality can also be generated by means of nominalization. At the end, the pragmatic functions of interpersonal metaphor in listening and speaking are fully explained.
Chapter four expounds the pragmatic functions of textual metaphor. Halliday does not include textual metaphor in his treatment of grammatical metaphor. However, the views about textual metaphor differ from one another among scholars themselves. In Martin’s model, there are two kinds of textual metaphors, i.e.metaphorical themes and metaphorical news. The pragmatic functions of textual metaphor are fully expounded.
Conclusion summarizes the whole thesis. I hope this thesis can benefit both college teachers and students through grasping the pragmatic functions of grammatical metaphor
本文试对词汇语法层面上的现象进行分析,进一步揭示语法隐喻的性质及其在大学英语中的语用功能。全文包括导言、结论及四章正文。导言主要回顾了传统的隐喻研究理论,讨论当今隐喻的发展趋势,并提出了隐喻研究的一个新的领域-语法隐喻。
第一章是对隐喻的纵览。隐喻原是一种传统修辞手段。随着认知科学与语言学的发展,国内外对隐喻有了更深刻地认识。认知语言学家莱考夫和约翰逊认为隐喻在日常生活中无所不在,并提出了著名的概念隐喻。而韩礼德则在系统功能语法理论的框架下提出了语法隐喻理论。他首先提出了三大元功能,即概念功能,人际功能和语篇功能。根据功能语法,语言分三个层次:语义层,词汇语法层和音系层,三个层次之间的关系是“实现”的关系,在实现的过程中出现了非一致性的实现关系,即跨域转换,产生出语法隐喻现象。因此,韩礼德根据语言的元功能理论,即语言具有概念元功能,人际元功能和语篇元功能的理论,把语法隐喻划分为概念隐喻,人际隐喻。
第二章讨论概念语法隐喻的语用功能。在概念隐喻中韩礼德显示一个属于概念元功能的及物性。及物性是一个语义系统,其作用是把人们在现实世界中的所见所闻、所作所为分成若干种“过程”,即将经验通过语法进行范畴化,并指明与各种过程有关的“参与者”和“环境成分”。韩礼德认为,人们可以通过及物性系统把人类经验分成六种不同的过程。随着过程的转换,各功能成分可以相互隐喻化。概念隐喻产生的另一种方式是名词化。韩礼德认为,名词化是构成概念隐喻最有力的手段。它把表示过程的动词和表示性质的形容词转换成名词,这些名词在小句中起过程和属性的作用,而在名词词组中表示物。也就是说,小句形式被转化成一个名词词组,整个名词词组在新的隐喻式小句中充当一个语法成分。概念语法隐喻的语用功能在阅读中得到充分的体现,通过对其在抽象语篇中的分析,帮助学生解决名词化问题,进而提高学生的阅读能力。
第三章研究人际语法隐喻的语用功能。人际功能是通过语气和情态这两个系统来体现的。语气系统和情态系统同样存在语法隐喻现象。系统功能语法将语气分为直陈语气和祈使语气,直陈语气又可进一步分为陈述语气和疑问语气。这三种语气的基本功能是:陈述语气体现陈述功能;疑问语气体现疑问功能;祈使语气体现提供和命令功能。然而,语气与言语功能之间并非一一对应的关系。一种言语功能可以由不同的语气来体现,一种语气也可以体现不同的言语功能。比如说,陈述语气除了体现陈述功能以外,还可以用来表示提问和请求;请求除了用祈使语气表示以外,疑问语气同样可以实现该功能。这类语气变异现象,即从一种语气域向另一种语气转移,就产生了语气隐喻。情态系统表达讲话者的观点和态度。情态意义大都通过情态动词、情态副词来表达。这就是情态的一致式表达。但情态还可以从主观和客观这两个角度来表达,韩礼德将其称作情态的取向,并把取向分为四种:明确主观、非明确主观明确客观、非明确客观。韩礼德指出,明确主观和明确客观都是隐喻性的。另外,名词化是产生情态隐喻的又一个途径。在听力和口语中普遍存在人际语法隐喻的语用功能。通过对人际语法隐喻的语用功能的分析,使学生能够听懂句子的隐含意义,并能够在不同的语境使用正确的表达。
第四章分析篇章隐喻的语法隐喻功能。韩礼德(1985)在他的语法隐喻中没有包含篇章隐喻。在所有关于语法隐喻的文献中对于篇章隐喻也没有明确的定义,一些学者认为,篇章隐喻可能是基于语言三大功能假设而来的,即概念隐喻,人际隐喻和篇章隐喻。关于篇章隐喻,学者们各持一词。主位述位结构和信息结构是篇章隐喻中很重要的概念。主位是指信息的出发点。述位是话语的核心内容。主位-述位是非标志性的,也就是一致式,述位-主位是标志性的,也就是隐喻式。已知信息是指在听者脑海里已存在的;新信息是指即将在语篇中出现的。马丁认为,有两种篇章隐喻,隐喻主位和隐喻信息。连贯与衔接是形成语篇的重要手段,其中语篇隐喻的语用功能便是连贯衔接,因此语篇隐喻对学生的写作具有重要意义。
在结论部分中,通过对语法隐喻在听、说、读、写方面语用功能的研究的阐述,进一步证明培养学生语法隐喻意识的重要性。语法隐喻理论对于很多领域的研究都具有重要意义。本论文对语法隐喻的分析和应用还不够全面,仍有很多没有涉及到,在以后学习工作中会对其进一步完善。
This thesis tries to study metaphor from the lexicogrammatical perspective, further announcing to public the properties and pragmatic functions of grammatical metaphor in college English. This thesis is composed of six parts, including an introduction, a conclusion and four chapters.
Introduction looks back at the traditional metaphor theories, and talks about the development trend of modern metaphor research, putting forward a new kind of aspect of metaphor study, namely the grammatical metaphor. Chapter one takes a panoramic view to the metaphor. Originally metaphor was only considered as a kind of traditional rhetoric means. Later, cognitive linguists Lakoff &Johnson put forward the conceptual metaphor. While Halliday put forward grammatical metaphor theories under the frame of the systemic functional grammar theory.
Chapter two expounds the pragmatic functions of ideational metaphor. Halliday believed that people could divide mankind's experience into six kinds of different processes. Along with the conversion of processes, each functional component can mutually be metaphorized. Nominalization is another method to generate ideational metaphor. Finally, the pragmatic functions of ideational metaphor in reading are fully expounded.
Chapter three expounds the pragmatic functions of interpersonal metaphor. Interpersonal function is realized by mood system and modality system. Interpersonal metaphor could take place in mood system and modality system. The variant of mood, that is, from one sub-domain of mood to another sub-domain of mood generates metaphors of mood.
Modality is typically expressed through modal verbs and adjuncts or the combination of the two. Metaphors of modality can also be generated by means of nominalization. At the end, the pragmatic functions of interpersonal metaphor in listening and speaking are fully explained.
Chapter four expounds the pragmatic functions of textual metaphor. Halliday does not include textual metaphor in his treatment of grammatical metaphor. However, the views about textual metaphor differ from one another among scholars themselves. In Martin’s model, there are two kinds of textual metaphors, i.e.metaphorical themes and metaphorical news. The pragmatic functions of textual metaphor are fully expounded.
Conclusion summarizes the whole thesis. I hope this thesis can benefit both college teachers and students through grasping the pragmatic functions of grammatical metaphor
引文
[01] Afford, John A. The grammatical metaphor: A survey of its use in the middle ages. Speculum, Vol. 57, No. 4. 1982.
[02] Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin, 1991.
[03] Feng, Cuihua. English Rhetorical Options: A Handbook of English Rhetorical Devices. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 1995.
[04] Givon, T. ON Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
[05] Givon, T. Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax, in J. Haiman. Ed. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1985.
[06] Goatly, Andrew. Species of Metaphor in Written and Spoken Varieties, in Mohsen Ghadessy. Ed. Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter Pyblishers, 1993.
[07] Goatly, Andrew. Metaphors We Die By. Manuscript. 1996.
[08] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
[09] Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.
[10] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1979.
[11] Halliday, M. A. K. Dimension of Discourse Analysis: Grammar, in Teun A. Van Dijk. Ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vo1.2: Dimension of Discourse. London: Academic Press, 1985.
[12] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
[13] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
[14] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2000.
[15] Hasan, Ruquaiya. Text in the Systemic-Functional Model, in Wolfgang U. Dressler. Ed Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyder, 1978.
[16] Hasan, Ruquaiya. Lending and Borrowing: from Grammar to Lexis in Beitrage Zur, Phonetik and Linguistik 48. 1985.
[17] Johnson, M. A Historical Perspective on the Problem of Metaphor, in Honeck&Hoffman ed. Cognition and Figurative Language, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[18] Lackoff, G. &Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[19] Lackoff, George. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in Andrew Ortony. Ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[20] Lackoff, George. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about themind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[21] Lackoff, George. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in Andrew Ortony. Ed.Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[22] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[23] Martin, J. R. Conjunction: the Logic of English Text, in J. S. Petofi. Ed. Micro and Macro Connexity of Text. Hamburg: Helmlut Buske, 1983.
[24] Martin, J. R. Nominalization in Science and Humanities: Distilling Knowledge and Scaffolding Text, in Eija Ventola. Ed. Trends in Linguistics: Functional and Systemic Linguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.
[25] Martin, J. R. English Text, System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Pub. Co., 1992.
[26] Matthiessen, Chritian. Interpreting the Textual Metafunction, in Martin Davies&Louise Ravelli. Ed. Advances in Systemic linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992.
[27] Matthiessen, Chritian. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers, 1995.
[28] Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor: A Multidisciplinary Problem, in A. Ortony ed. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[29] Pollio, H. R. &Smith, M. K. Metaphoric Competence and Complex Human Problem Solving, in Honeck&Hoffman ed. Cognition and Figurative Language.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[30] Ungerer, F., Schmid, H. J. (1996) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
[31] Ravelli, Louise. Grammatical metaphor: an initial analysis, in Erich H. Steiner et al. ed. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 1988.
[32] Reddy, Michael J. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language, in Andrew Ortony. Ed. Metaphor and Thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[33] Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.
[34] Ricoeur, Paul. The Rule Of Metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.
[35] Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 1996.
[36] Austin, J. L. (1962/1975). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[37] Beaugrande, &Dressier. (1981).Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
[38] B1oor, T. & Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Edward Arnold.
[39] Brown, G. &Yule, G. (2000). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
[40] Cooper, D. (1986). Metaphor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
[41] Couldhard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
[42] Cullip, P. (2000)." Text Technology: The Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor" in RELC Journal Vo1.31 No.2 December 2000.
[43] Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
[44] Halliday, M. A. K. (1999a). The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: the Framing of the English Clause [A]. In R. Rossini,G. Sandri&R. Scazzieri (eds.) Incommenszrrability and Translation [c]. Chelterham: Elgar.
[45] Halliday, M. A. K.&Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. (1999b). Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Cassell.
[46] Hoey, M. (1991/1996). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford University Press.
[47] Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[48] Kress, G.R. (1976). Halliday: System and Function in Language. Oxford.
[49] Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.Co.
[50] Martin, J. R., C. Matthiessen, and C. Painter. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
[51] Matthiessen, C. (1992). “Interpreting the Textual Metafunction”, in Martin Davies& Louise Ravelli. (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
[52] Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[53] Ravelli, L. (1988). "Grammatical Metaphor: an Initial Analysis," in Erich H. Steiner et al (eds.) Pragmatics, discourse and text. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
[54] Richards, J. C., Platt, J., Platt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &Applied Linguistics. Longman Group UK Limited.
[55] Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in. the Philosophy ofLanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[56] Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
[57] Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold Limited.
[58] 朱永生、严世清,2000,语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献,《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
[59] 范文芳,《语法隐喻理论研究》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001年。
[60] 胡曙中,《英语修辞学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002 年。
[61] 胡壮麟,“韩礼德的语言观”,《外语教学与研究》,1984 年第一期。
[62] 胡壮麟,朱永生、张德禄,《系统功能语法概论》。长沙:湖南教育出版社 1989 年。
[63] 胡壮麟,“功能主义纵横谈”,《外国语》,1991 年第三期。
[64] 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994年。
[65] 胡壮麟,“语法隐喻”,《外语教学与研究》,1996 年第四期。
[66] 胡壮麟,“语言·认知·隐喻”,《现代外语》,1997 年第四期。
[67] 胡壮麟,“评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[68] 胡壮麟主编,《语言学教程》(修订版)。北京:北京大学出版社,2001年。
[69] 李柯平,“英语科技文体的语法隐喻”,《湖南医科大学学报》(社会科学版) 2001 年第三期。
[70] 林书武,“《隐喻与像似性》简介”,《外国语言学》,1995 年第三期。
[71] 刘润清,《西方语言学流派》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999年。
[72] 刘宇红,“Congruence 浅议”,《外国语)),2001 年第六期。
[73] 束定芳,“亚里斯多德的隐喻理论”,《外语研究》,1995 年第三期。
[74] 束定芳,“论隐喻的本质与语义特征”,《外国语》,1998 年第五期。
[75] 严世清,“隐喻理论史探”,《外国语》,1995 年第五期。
[76] 严世清,《隐喻论》。苏州:苏州大学出版社,2000 年。
[77] 张德禄,“语篇连贯与语篇的信息结构”,《外语研究》,1992 年第三期。
[78] 张德禄,“论语篇连贯”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[79] 赵艳芳,“语言的隐喻认知结构一一《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介”,《外语教学与研究》,1995 年第三期。
[80] 赵艳芳,((认知语言学概论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001 年。
[81] 周大军,“英语人际意义的情态隐喻表达”,《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2001 年第三期。
[82] 朱永生,“英语中的语法比喻现象”,《外国语》,1994 年第一期。
[83] 朱永生、严世清,“语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[84] 朱永生、董宏乐,“科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性”,《山东外语教学》,2001 年第四期。
[85] 岑麒祥,《语言学史概要》。北京:北京大学出版社,1988 年。
[86] 常晨光,“英语中的人际语法隐喻”,《外语与外语教学》,2001 年总第八期。
[87] 陈华英,“概念语法隐喻对句子理解难度的影响”,《新疆师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1998 年第一期。
[88] 从莱庭,《英语修辞学新论》。济南: 济南出版社,1999 年。
[89] 范文芳,“语法隐喻理论初探”,《北京大学研究生专刊》,1995 年。
[90] 范文芳,“语法隐喻理论探究”,《山东外语教学》,1997 年第一期。
[91] 范文芳,“英语语气隐喻”, 《外国语》,2000 年第四期。
[02] Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin, 1991.
[03] Feng, Cuihua. English Rhetorical Options: A Handbook of English Rhetorical Devices. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 1995.
[04] Givon, T. ON Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
[05] Givon, T. Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax, in J. Haiman. Ed. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1985.
[06] Goatly, Andrew. Species of Metaphor in Written and Spoken Varieties, in Mohsen Ghadessy. Ed. Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter Pyblishers, 1993.
[07] Goatly, Andrew. Metaphors We Die By. Manuscript. 1996.
[08] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
[09] Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.
[10] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1979.
[11] Halliday, M. A. K. Dimension of Discourse Analysis: Grammar, in Teun A. Van Dijk. Ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vo1.2: Dimension of Discourse. London: Academic Press, 1985.
[12] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
[13] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
[14] Halliday, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2000.
[15] Hasan, Ruquaiya. Text in the Systemic-Functional Model, in Wolfgang U. Dressler. Ed Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyder, 1978.
[16] Hasan, Ruquaiya. Lending and Borrowing: from Grammar to Lexis in Beitrage Zur, Phonetik and Linguistik 48. 1985.
[17] Johnson, M. A Historical Perspective on the Problem of Metaphor, in Honeck&Hoffman ed. Cognition and Figurative Language, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[18] Lackoff, G. &Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[19] Lackoff, George. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in Andrew Ortony. Ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[20] Lackoff, George. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about themind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[21] Lackoff, George. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in Andrew Ortony. Ed.Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[22] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[23] Martin, J. R. Conjunction: the Logic of English Text, in J. S. Petofi. Ed. Micro and Macro Connexity of Text. Hamburg: Helmlut Buske, 1983.
[24] Martin, J. R. Nominalization in Science and Humanities: Distilling Knowledge and Scaffolding Text, in Eija Ventola. Ed. Trends in Linguistics: Functional and Systemic Linguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.
[25] Martin, J. R. English Text, System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Pub. Co., 1992.
[26] Matthiessen, Chritian. Interpreting the Textual Metafunction, in Martin Davies&Louise Ravelli. Ed. Advances in Systemic linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992.
[27] Matthiessen, Chritian. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers, 1995.
[28] Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor: A Multidisciplinary Problem, in A. Ortony ed. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[29] Pollio, H. R. &Smith, M. K. Metaphoric Competence and Complex Human Problem Solving, in Honeck&Hoffman ed. Cognition and Figurative Language.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
[30] Ungerer, F., Schmid, H. J. (1996) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
[31] Ravelli, Louise. Grammatical metaphor: an initial analysis, in Erich H. Steiner et al. ed. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 1988.
[32] Reddy, Michael J. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language, in Andrew Ortony. Ed. Metaphor and Thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[33] Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.
[34] Ricoeur, Paul. The Rule Of Metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.
[35] Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 1996.
[36] Austin, J. L. (1962/1975). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[37] Beaugrande, &Dressier. (1981).Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
[38] B1oor, T. & Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Edward Arnold.
[39] Brown, G. &Yule, G. (2000). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
[40] Cooper, D. (1986). Metaphor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
[41] Couldhard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
[42] Cullip, P. (2000)." Text Technology: The Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor" in RELC Journal Vo1.31 No.2 December 2000.
[43] Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
[44] Halliday, M. A. K. (1999a). The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: the Framing of the English Clause [A]. In R. Rossini,G. Sandri&R. Scazzieri (eds.) Incommenszrrability and Translation [c]. Chelterham: Elgar.
[45] Halliday, M. A. K.&Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. (1999b). Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Cassell.
[46] Hoey, M. (1991/1996). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford University Press.
[47] Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[48] Kress, G.R. (1976). Halliday: System and Function in Language. Oxford.
[49] Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.Co.
[50] Martin, J. R., C. Matthiessen, and C. Painter. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
[51] Matthiessen, C. (1992). “Interpreting the Textual Metafunction”, in Martin Davies& Louise Ravelli. (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
[52] Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[53] Ravelli, L. (1988). "Grammatical Metaphor: an Initial Analysis," in Erich H. Steiner et al (eds.) Pragmatics, discourse and text. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
[54] Richards, J. C., Platt, J., Platt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &Applied Linguistics. Longman Group UK Limited.
[55] Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in. the Philosophy ofLanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[56] Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
[57] Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold Limited.
[58] 朱永生、严世清,2000,语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献,《外语教学与研究》第 2 期。
[59] 范文芳,《语法隐喻理论研究》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001年。
[60] 胡曙中,《英语修辞学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002 年。
[61] 胡壮麟,“韩礼德的语言观”,《外语教学与研究》,1984 年第一期。
[62] 胡壮麟,朱永生、张德禄,《系统功能语法概论》。长沙:湖南教育出版社 1989 年。
[63] 胡壮麟,“功能主义纵横谈”,《外国语》,1991 年第三期。
[64] 胡壮麟,《语篇的衔接与连贯》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994年。
[65] 胡壮麟,“语法隐喻”,《外语教学与研究》,1996 年第四期。
[66] 胡壮麟,“语言·认知·隐喻”,《现代外语》,1997 年第四期。
[67] 胡壮麟,“评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[68] 胡壮麟主编,《语言学教程》(修订版)。北京:北京大学出版社,2001年。
[69] 李柯平,“英语科技文体的语法隐喻”,《湖南医科大学学报》(社会科学版) 2001 年第三期。
[70] 林书武,“《隐喻与像似性》简介”,《外国语言学》,1995 年第三期。
[71] 刘润清,《西方语言学流派》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1999年。
[72] 刘宇红,“Congruence 浅议”,《外国语)),2001 年第六期。
[73] 束定芳,“亚里斯多德的隐喻理论”,《外语研究》,1995 年第三期。
[74] 束定芳,“论隐喻的本质与语义特征”,《外国语》,1998 年第五期。
[75] 严世清,“隐喻理论史探”,《外国语》,1995 年第五期。
[76] 严世清,《隐喻论》。苏州:苏州大学出版社,2000 年。
[77] 张德禄,“语篇连贯与语篇的信息结构”,《外语研究》,1992 年第三期。
[78] 张德禄,“论语篇连贯”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[79] 赵艳芳,“语言的隐喻认知结构一一《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介”,《外语教学与研究》,1995 年第三期。
[80] 赵艳芳,((认知语言学概论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001 年。
[81] 周大军,“英语人际意义的情态隐喻表达”,《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2001 年第三期。
[82] 朱永生,“英语中的语法比喻现象”,《外国语》,1994 年第一期。
[83] 朱永生、严世清,“语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献”,《外语教学与研究》,2000 年第二期。
[84] 朱永生、董宏乐,“科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性”,《山东外语教学》,2001 年第四期。
[85] 岑麒祥,《语言学史概要》。北京:北京大学出版社,1988 年。
[86] 常晨光,“英语中的人际语法隐喻”,《外语与外语教学》,2001 年总第八期。
[87] 陈华英,“概念语法隐喻对句子理解难度的影响”,《新疆师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1998 年第一期。
[88] 从莱庭,《英语修辞学新论》。济南: 济南出版社,1999 年。
[89] 范文芳,“语法隐喻理论初探”,《北京大学研究生专刊》,1995 年。
[90] 范文芳,“语法隐喻理论探究”,《山东外语教学》,1997 年第一期。
[91] 范文芳,“英语语气隐喻”, 《外国语》,2000 年第四期。