英汉时间隐喻空间化的认知语言学对比研究
|
摘要
两千多年来，隐喻一直是作为一种修辞手段为人们所关注。认知语言学认为隐喻是人类认知的基本途径和方法。因而，在隐喻研究中，认知观取代了传统的研究方法，因为传统的研究方法没有体现隐喻在本质上是认知的，也忽略了隐喻在人类认知中不可替代的重要地位。从本质上来说，隐喻是认知工具。作为一种基本的认知方式，隐喻使得我们可以通过结构相对丰富的始源概念来理解结构相对欠缺的目标概念。认知语言学经验观认为，隐喻无处不在，其本质是认知的，隐喻不是修辞格，不是简单的语言产物，而是一种通过语言表现出来的思维方式。
本文之所以把时间隐喻空间化这一概念隐喻作为研究对象，其主要原因是因为在认知语言学领域里，空间占有极其重要的地位。空间是一种基本的本体论范畴，人们往往借助于空间概念去认知和构建其它抽象复杂的概念系统或事物。时间是非常抽象的概念，因此，必须借助隐喻才能认知时间的本质。人类对时间的认知主要是空间结构的投射。
不同民族的隐喻认知的共性与差异性都在语言表达上得以体现。概念是人认识世界的产物，是对事物本质的反映，是对一类事物进行概括的符号表征，这就使语言成为研究认知的重要窗口。就时间隐喻而言，通过考察语言现象我们可以洞悉时间的本质。
本文共分六章。第一章是引言，对认知语言学在时间隐喻空间化方面的研究作一个回顾和综述，并就本文的研究意义作出简略的解释。第二章是本文所要借助的理论依据。本文主要是以莱可夫和约翰逊的隐喻理论为基本理论背景。第三章介绍时间概念和空间概念及其关系。第四章是本文的核心部分。本章将系统比较英汉时间隐喻空间化的相似性与差异性。时间概念主要是以线性模式来构建的，线性模式提供了至少两种可能性。其一是“时间的流逝是沿横向坐标的运动”，其二是“时间的流逝是沿纵坐标的运动”。在汉语中两种模式似乎同样活跃，而在英语中第一种占据了统治地位。所以本章第一部分将讨论时间沿着横向坐标运动即水平方向运动的情况。根据莱可夫所提出的在英语中的两种时间认知模式(特例一：人静时动型，特例二：人动时静型)，我们发现特例一和特例二同样适用于汉语。
在汉语中，诸多表达时间的词汇无不通过隐喻映射为我们所理解并运用。表达“过去”的词汇的字面意思要么为“从静止的观察者身边经过的东西”，如“过去”、“已往”或“以往”等，要么为“被运动中的观察者抛于身后的东西”，比如“历程”、“路程”或“前尘”等。“现在”意味着“恰好与观察者在一块”，或“就在观察者眼前或面前”，如“当前”、“目前”、“目下”、“眼前”等。而“将来”则为“还未来但要来到观察者身边的东西”或“观察者走向的目标”前者如“将来”、“未来”，后者如“前程”、“前途”、“前景”等。除此之外，莱可夫发现，以上两种时间隐喻特例可能同时映射到一个时间表达中，这种现象在汉语中也存在。另外，值得注意的是在汉语里“前”还可以表示过去，“后”还可以表示将来。本章的第二部分将探讨时间沿着纵向坐标运动即垂直方向运动的情况。在这种情况下，我们也有两种特例。不同的是在汉语中特例一和特例二彼此吻合，而英语中的这两种特例却呈现出不可调和的矛盾。第五章主要探讨了英汉两种差距如此之大的语言为什么在时间隐喻空间化方面有如此多的共同点。当然两种语言之间也存在差异。第六章是结论部分。
本文在现代隐喻理论的基础上，通过对英汉时间隐喻空间化的专门研究，对于深层了解时间概念的认知和思维起到了重要作用。本文探讨的英汉时间隐喻空间化的认知共性反映了人作为同类认知的共同点，差异性也可以在各个民族文化中找到渊源，更加印证了认知语言学的哲学观—经验现实主义。最后，必须指出就广度和深度而言，本研究还远远不够，大量的研究有待进行以验证本研究结论的正确性，应该设计大量的实验、问卷等使得结论更加有说服力。
Metaphor has been an object of rhetorical device for more than two thousand years. From the cognitive linguistics point of view, metaphor is the basic way and means of human cognition. The cognitive approach to metaphor replaces all the traditional approaches to metaphor, for although they have been able to shed light on various aspects of metaphorical phenomenon, they have all failed to recognize the fundamental conceptual nature of metaphor and the indispensable role metaphor plays in human conceptualization. Following the experiential view, the key to metaphor is to transfer our experience of well-known objects and events to less familiar categories, especially abstract categories like "time". Metaphors are no longer regarded as ornamental devices used in rhetorical style, but powerful tools for our conceptualization of abstract categories.
The reason why this thesis focuses on the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is that space has a predominant position in the field of cognitive linguistics. Space is an ontological category. Humans often use the category of space to approach and construct other abstract and complicated category. As time is often held to be the example of a so-called "abstract" concept, it is virtually impossible for us to conceptualize time without metaphor. Most of our understanding of time is a metaphorical version of our understanding of motion in space. As language reflects conceptual structure in important ways, it accordingly represents a crucial window into the human conceptual system. By examining the way in which language lexicalizes time, we will gain important insights into the conceptualization of time, the nature and organization of time, and the similarities and differences between the ways different people develop their concepts via temporal metaphors.
This thesis falls into six parts. Chapter one is an introduction which gives an overview of the cognitive study of metaphor and also covers the significance of writing this thesis. Chapter Two sets up the theoretical framework through the cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor. The theoretical framework of metaphor is mainly based on the theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Chapter Three introduces the concepts of time and space and the relationship between them is also briefly outlined. Chapter Four is the most important part of this thesis as in this chapter the comparison of TIME AS SPACE metaphor between English and Chinese is analyzed. The category of time is constructed through the linear model. The linear model provides at least two possibilities. One is that time passing is motion along horizontal axis, the other is that time passing is motion along vertical axis. In Chinese the two possibilities seem to enjoy more or less the same level of popularity, whereas in English, the first possibility, i.e. the horizontal version of the metaphor, appears to be dominant and has been taken for granted as the only possibility by many researchers. Therefore in the first part of this chapter, the horizontal axis will be discussed. Actually, in Chinese time is conceptualized systematically in terms of space just as in English. Specifically, we have found that the two special cases (Case 1: time moving model and Case 2: observer moving model) specified by Lakoff for the metaphor system of time in English are properly applicable in Chinese.
In Chinese lexicon, the words for "past" literally mean either "something that has passed by the stationary observer" or "something left behind by the traveling observer". The words for "present" characterize as "right with the observer", especially as "right before the observer's eyes or face." Therefore, the present is the time the observer is "seeing" right before him. This characterization of the present time is suitable to both Case 1 and Case 2. The words for "future" have the literal senses of either "something that has not yet come but will come to the stationary observer", or "something toward which the observer is traveling". It is worth noting that the future is conceptualized as in front of the observer and the past behind the observer, which is evidenced by the verbs collocating with the words of "future" and "past". One always "looks forward or ahead to the future". As for the past, one always has to "turn around" in order to recall or recollect it. Sometimes, in order to "reach" the past, one has to "run after" it so as to "catch up with" it.
Lakoff also observes the "duality" phenomenon where simultaneous mappings may mix the two special cases in a single expression. In addition, it is worth noting that in Chinese "qian" can also denote past and "hou" can denote future. In the second part of this chapter the vertical axis will be analyzed. In this axis we also have two special cases. In Chinese the two special cases are consistent with each other, while in English the two special cases present an unharmonious contradiction. Chapter five focuses on the answer to the question: What leads to such great similarity between the two linguistically remote and culturally distinct languages? You can also find the answer to the question why there are also differences existing between these two languages. Chapter Six is the conclusion.
Based on the contemporary theory of metaphor, through special study on TIME AS SAPCE metaphor, this thesis is vital for revealing and proving modern metaphor theories. At the end of this thesis, it must be pointed out that in terms of both breadth and depth, this study is still very limited. It is necessary to do further studies to testify the conclusion, and some experiments, questionnaires as well as spoken and written discourses could be designed to provide the concrete data to provide the study with a sound base.
本文之所以把时间隐喻空间化这一概念隐喻作为研究对象，其主要原因是因为在认知语言学领域里，空间占有极其重要的地位。空间是一种基本的本体论范畴，人们往往借助于空间概念去认知和构建其它抽象复杂的概念系统或事物。时间是非常抽象的概念，因此，必须借助隐喻才能认知时间的本质。人类对时间的认知主要是空间结构的投射。
不同民族的隐喻认知的共性与差异性都在语言表达上得以体现。概念是人认识世界的产物，是对事物本质的反映，是对一类事物进行概括的符号表征，这就使语言成为研究认知的重要窗口。就时间隐喻而言，通过考察语言现象我们可以洞悉时间的本质。
本文共分六章。第一章是引言，对认知语言学在时间隐喻空间化方面的研究作一个回顾和综述，并就本文的研究意义作出简略的解释。第二章是本文所要借助的理论依据。本文主要是以莱可夫和约翰逊的隐喻理论为基本理论背景。第三章介绍时间概念和空间概念及其关系。第四章是本文的核心部分。本章将系统比较英汉时间隐喻空间化的相似性与差异性。时间概念主要是以线性模式来构建的，线性模式提供了至少两种可能性。其一是“时间的流逝是沿横向坐标的运动”，其二是“时间的流逝是沿纵坐标的运动”。在汉语中两种模式似乎同样活跃，而在英语中第一种占据了统治地位。所以本章第一部分将讨论时间沿着横向坐标运动即水平方向运动的情况。根据莱可夫所提出的在英语中的两种时间认知模式(特例一：人静时动型，特例二：人动时静型)，我们发现特例一和特例二同样适用于汉语。
在汉语中，诸多表达时间的词汇无不通过隐喻映射为我们所理解并运用。表达“过去”的词汇的字面意思要么为“从静止的观察者身边经过的东西”，如“过去”、“已往”或“以往”等，要么为“被运动中的观察者抛于身后的东西”，比如“历程”、“路程”或“前尘”等。“现在”意味着“恰好与观察者在一块”，或“就在观察者眼前或面前”，如“当前”、“目前”、“目下”、“眼前”等。而“将来”则为“还未来但要来到观察者身边的东西”或“观察者走向的目标”前者如“将来”、“未来”，后者如“前程”、“前途”、“前景”等。除此之外，莱可夫发现，以上两种时间隐喻特例可能同时映射到一个时间表达中，这种现象在汉语中也存在。另外，值得注意的是在汉语里“前”还可以表示过去，“后”还可以表示将来。本章的第二部分将探讨时间沿着纵向坐标运动即垂直方向运动的情况。在这种情况下，我们也有两种特例。不同的是在汉语中特例一和特例二彼此吻合，而英语中的这两种特例却呈现出不可调和的矛盾。第五章主要探讨了英汉两种差距如此之大的语言为什么在时间隐喻空间化方面有如此多的共同点。当然两种语言之间也存在差异。第六章是结论部分。
本文在现代隐喻理论的基础上，通过对英汉时间隐喻空间化的专门研究，对于深层了解时间概念的认知和思维起到了重要作用。本文探讨的英汉时间隐喻空间化的认知共性反映了人作为同类认知的共同点，差异性也可以在各个民族文化中找到渊源，更加印证了认知语言学的哲学观—经验现实主义。最后，必须指出就广度和深度而言，本研究还远远不够，大量的研究有待进行以验证本研究结论的正确性，应该设计大量的实验、问卷等使得结论更加有说服力。
Metaphor has been an object of rhetorical device for more than two thousand years. From the cognitive linguistics point of view, metaphor is the basic way and means of human cognition. The cognitive approach to metaphor replaces all the traditional approaches to metaphor, for although they have been able to shed light on various aspects of metaphorical phenomenon, they have all failed to recognize the fundamental conceptual nature of metaphor and the indispensable role metaphor plays in human conceptualization. Following the experiential view, the key to metaphor is to transfer our experience of well-known objects and events to less familiar categories, especially abstract categories like "time". Metaphors are no longer regarded as ornamental devices used in rhetorical style, but powerful tools for our conceptualization of abstract categories.
The reason why this thesis focuses on the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is that space has a predominant position in the field of cognitive linguistics. Space is an ontological category. Humans often use the category of space to approach and construct other abstract and complicated category. As time is often held to be the example of a so-called "abstract" concept, it is virtually impossible for us to conceptualize time without metaphor. Most of our understanding of time is a metaphorical version of our understanding of motion in space. As language reflects conceptual structure in important ways, it accordingly represents a crucial window into the human conceptual system. By examining the way in which language lexicalizes time, we will gain important insights into the conceptualization of time, the nature and organization of time, and the similarities and differences between the ways different people develop their concepts via temporal metaphors.
This thesis falls into six parts. Chapter one is an introduction which gives an overview of the cognitive study of metaphor and also covers the significance of writing this thesis. Chapter Two sets up the theoretical framework through the cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor. The theoretical framework of metaphor is mainly based on the theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Chapter Three introduces the concepts of time and space and the relationship between them is also briefly outlined. Chapter Four is the most important part of this thesis as in this chapter the comparison of TIME AS SPACE metaphor between English and Chinese is analyzed. The category of time is constructed through the linear model. The linear model provides at least two possibilities. One is that time passing is motion along horizontal axis, the other is that time passing is motion along vertical axis. In Chinese the two possibilities seem to enjoy more or less the same level of popularity, whereas in English, the first possibility, i.e. the horizontal version of the metaphor, appears to be dominant and has been taken for granted as the only possibility by many researchers. Therefore in the first part of this chapter, the horizontal axis will be discussed. Actually, in Chinese time is conceptualized systematically in terms of space just as in English. Specifically, we have found that the two special cases (Case 1: time moving model and Case 2: observer moving model) specified by Lakoff for the metaphor system of time in English are properly applicable in Chinese.
In Chinese lexicon, the words for "past" literally mean either "something that has passed by the stationary observer" or "something left behind by the traveling observer". The words for "present" characterize as "right with the observer", especially as "right before the observer's eyes or face." Therefore, the present is the time the observer is "seeing" right before him. This characterization of the present time is suitable to both Case 1 and Case 2. The words for "future" have the literal senses of either "something that has not yet come but will come to the stationary observer", or "something toward which the observer is traveling". It is worth noting that the future is conceptualized as in front of the observer and the past behind the observer, which is evidenced by the verbs collocating with the words of "future" and "past". One always "looks forward or ahead to the future". As for the past, one always has to "turn around" in order to recall or recollect it. Sometimes, in order to "reach" the past, one has to "run after" it so as to "catch up with" it.
Lakoff also observes the "duality" phenomenon where simultaneous mappings may mix the two special cases in a single expression. In addition, it is worth noting that in Chinese "qian" can also denote past and "hou" can denote future. In the second part of this chapter the vertical axis will be analyzed. In this axis we also have two special cases. In Chinese the two special cases are consistent with each other, while in English the two special cases present an unharmonious contradiction. Chapter five focuses on the answer to the question: What leads to such great similarity between the two linguistically remote and culturally distinct languages? You can also find the answer to the question why there are also differences existing between these two languages. Chapter Six is the conclusion.
Based on the contemporary theory of metaphor, through special study on TIME AS SAPCE metaphor, this thesis is vital for revealing and proving modern metaphor theories. At the end of this thesis, it must be pointed out that in terms of both breadth and depth, this study is still very limited. It is necessary to do further studies to testify the conclusion, and some experiments, questionnaires as well as spoken and written discourses could be designed to provide the concrete data to provide the study with a sound base.
引文
[1] Akhundov, M. 1986. Conception of Space and Tune (trans. By Charles Rouge). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[2] Albertazzi, L. (ed.) 2000. Meaning and Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[3] Allinson, R. (ed.) 1989. Understanding the Chinese Mind: the Philosophical Roots.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[5] Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York: The Modern Library.
[6] Aronoff, M.&Rees-Miller, J. (ed.) 2001.The Handbook of Linguistics. Blackwell:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[7] Black, M. (ed.). 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[8] D. &Sears, D. 1981.Aspects of Language. (3rd ed.) Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
[9] Brugman, C. 1988. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.
[10] Cameron, L.&Low, G. (ed.) 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[11] CarbonelI, Jaime G. 1982, Metaphor: An Inescapable Phenomenon in Natural Language Comprehension. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[12] Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press.
[13] Cohen, J. 1993. The semantics of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.) 1993. Metaphor and Thought. (2rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-70.
[14] Cooper, D. E. 1986. Metaphor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[15] Deignan, A. 2001. Collins Cobuild: Metaphor. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press.
[16] Dirvcn, R.&Verspoor, M. 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
[17] Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[18] Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
[19] Hatch, E. and Brown, C. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[20] Hergenhann, B. R. An Introduction to the History of Pshchology, Balmont: Wadsworth, 1986.
[21] Johnson, M.&George L. Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires embodied Realism, Cognitive Linguistics
[22] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the mind, Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 1987.
[23] Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[24] Lyons, J. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press,1995.
[25] Medlin,D.L., Ross, B.H., and Markman, A.B. Cognitive Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
[26] Procter, P. Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[27] Sinha, C. and Jensen de Lopez, K. Language, culture and the Embodiment of Spatial Cognition, Cognitive linguistics.
[28] Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[29] Tyler, A. and Vyvyan Evans. Spatial Scenes: A Cognitive Approach to Prepositions and the Experiential Basis of Meaning [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[30] Tyler, A. and Evans, V. The Semantics of English Prepositions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
[31] Ugerer, F&Schmid, H. J. An Introduction to cognitive Linguistics, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[32] 程琪花，“语言认识和隐喻”，《外国语》，2002，1
[33] 戴俊霞，“隐喻与人类中心论”，《外国语言文学》，2003，2
[34] 贾玉新，《跨文化交际学》，上海外语教育出版社，1997
[35] 蒋小平，《世界谚语精选》，中南工业大学出版社
[36] 蓝纯，“从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻”，《外语教学与研究》，1999，4
[37] 李福印，盛春媛，“评介Martin J. Gannon的‘文化隐喻三部曲’”，《外国语言文学》，2003，3
[38] 李荫华，(全新版)《大学英语综合教程》上海外语教育出版社，2001
[39] 刘正光，“隐喻映射的本质特征”，《外语学刊》，2003，3
[40] 束定芳，《隐喻学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，2000
[41] 束定芳，，“论隐喻的运作机制”，《外语教学与研究》，2002，2
[42] 王广成，王秀卿，“隐喻的认知基础与跨文化隐喻的相似性”，《外语教学》，2000，1
[43] 王寅，《语义理论与语言教学》，上海外语教育出版社，2001
[44] 赵娟，傅惠生，“英汉‘上、下、前、后’之对比”，《天津外国语学院学报》2003，6
[45] 赵彦春，黄建华，“隐喻认知—词典学的眼睛”，《现代外语》，2000，2
[46] 赵艳芳，“语言的隐喻认知结构—《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介”，《外语教学与研究》，1995，3
[47] 赵艳芳，《认知语言学概论》，上海外语教育出版社，2000
[48] 赵英玲，“英语空间性隐喻的特性分析”，《外语学刊》，1999，3
[49] 周榕，“时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究”，《现代外语》，2000，1
[50] 周榕，“隐喻认知基础的心理现实性—时间的空间隐喻表征的实验证据”，《外语教学与研究》，2001，2
[51] 周榕，“隐喻表征性质研究”，《外语教学与研究》，2002，4
[52] 郭锐，“汉语动词的过程结构”，《中国语文》，1993，3
[53] 刘宇生，“汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系”，《中国语文》，1994，3
[54] 吴国盛，《时间的观念》，中国社会科学出版社，1996
[55] 李向农，《现代汉语时点时段研究》，华中师范大学出版社，1997
[56] 张建理，“汉语时间系统中的‘前’，‘后’认知和表达”[J]．浙江大学学报，2003，5
[57] 周榕，黄希庭，“．中英文时间表征的对比探析”[J]西南师范大学学报，1999．
[58] 李振华et al．《最新牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》[Z]．太原：山西人民出版社，1991．
[59] 刘源et al．《现代汉语常用词词频词典》[Z]．北京：宇航出版社，1990．
[60] 梅家驹et al．《现代汉语搭配词典》[Z]．上海：汉语大词典出版社，1999．
[61] 商务印书馆辞书研究中心．《现代汉语词典》[Z]．北京；商务印书馆，2005．
[62] 范文芳，“隐喻理论探究”，《山东外语教学》，1997
[63] 董莉，“空间隐喻的辩证思考”，《解放军外国语学院学报》，2000，3
[64] 耿占春，《隐喻》，北京，东方出版社，19930
[65] 胡壮麟，“科学理论新发现与语言学新思维”，《外语教学与研究》，1999
[66] 林书武，“国外隐喻研究综述”，《外语教学与研究》，1997，
[67] 林书武，“隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势”，《外国语》，2002，5
[68] 聂亚宁，“Beyond的中心-边缘意象图示和空间意义概念隐喻意义初探”，《外语与外教学》，2002，20
[69] 陶文好，“论UP的空间和隐喻特征”，《外语与外与教学》，1997，4
[70] 陶文好，“论up的空间和意义认知”，《外语学刊》，2000，4
[71] 吴国盛，《时间的观念》，北京，中国社会科学出版社，1996，3
[72] 吴静，王瑞东，“空间隐喻的英汉对比研究”，《山东外语教学》，2001，
[73] 于善志，“英语空间介词及其隐喻派生”，《山东师大外国语学院学报》，2002，
[74] 张其的，“运动义动词‘上’，‘下’用法思考”，《语言研究》，1995，6
[75] 赵英玲，“英语空间性隐喻的特征分析”，《外语学刊》，1999，3
[76] 张蓓，“试论隐喻的认知力和文化阐释功能”，《外语教学》，1998，4
[2] Albertazzi, L. (ed.) 2000. Meaning and Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[3] Allinson, R. (ed.) 1989. Understanding the Chinese Mind: the Philosophical Roots.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[5] Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York: The Modern Library.
[6] Aronoff, M.&Rees-Miller, J. (ed.) 2001.The Handbook of Linguistics. Blackwell:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[7] Black, M. (ed.). 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[8] D. &Sears, D. 1981.Aspects of Language. (3rd ed.) Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
[9] Brugman, C. 1988. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.
[10] Cameron, L.&Low, G. (ed.) 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[11] CarbonelI, Jaime G. 1982, Metaphor: An Inescapable Phenomenon in Natural Language Comprehension. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[12] Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press.
[13] Cohen, J. 1993. The semantics of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.) 1993. Metaphor and Thought. (2rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-70.
[14] Cooper, D. E. 1986. Metaphor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[15] Deignan, A. 2001. Collins Cobuild: Metaphor. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press.
[16] Dirvcn, R.&Verspoor, M. 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
[17] Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[18] Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
[19] Hatch, E. and Brown, C. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[20] Hergenhann, B. R. An Introduction to the History of Pshchology, Balmont: Wadsworth, 1986.
[21] Johnson, M.&George L. Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires embodied Realism, Cognitive Linguistics
[22] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the mind, Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 1987.
[23] Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[24] Lyons, J. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press,1995.
[25] Medlin,D.L., Ross, B.H., and Markman, A.B. Cognitive Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
[26] Procter, P. Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[27] Sinha, C. and Jensen de Lopez, K. Language, culture and the Embodiment of Spatial Cognition, Cognitive linguistics.
[28] Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[29] Tyler, A. and Vyvyan Evans. Spatial Scenes: A Cognitive Approach to Prepositions and the Experiential Basis of Meaning [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[30] Tyler, A. and Evans, V. The Semantics of English Prepositions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
[31] Ugerer, F&Schmid, H. J. An Introduction to cognitive Linguistics, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[32] 程琪花，“语言认识和隐喻”，《外国语》，2002，1
[33] 戴俊霞，“隐喻与人类中心论”，《外国语言文学》，2003，2
[34] 贾玉新，《跨文化交际学》，上海外语教育出版社，1997
[35] 蒋小平，《世界谚语精选》，中南工业大学出版社
[36] 蓝纯，“从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻”，《外语教学与研究》，1999，4
[37] 李福印，盛春媛，“评介Martin J. Gannon的‘文化隐喻三部曲’”，《外国语言文学》，2003，3
[38] 李荫华，(全新版)《大学英语综合教程》上海外语教育出版社，2001
[39] 刘正光，“隐喻映射的本质特征”，《外语学刊》，2003，3
[40] 束定芳，《隐喻学研究》，上海外语教育出版社，2000
[41] 束定芳，，“论隐喻的运作机制”，《外语教学与研究》，2002，2
[42] 王广成，王秀卿，“隐喻的认知基础与跨文化隐喻的相似性”，《外语教学》，2000，1
[43] 王寅，《语义理论与语言教学》，上海外语教育出版社，2001
[44] 赵娟，傅惠生，“英汉‘上、下、前、后’之对比”，《天津外国语学院学报》2003，6
[45] 赵彦春，黄建华，“隐喻认知—词典学的眼睛”，《现代外语》，2000，2
[46] 赵艳芳，“语言的隐喻认知结构—《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介”，《外语教学与研究》，1995，3
[47] 赵艳芳，《认知语言学概论》，上海外语教育出版社，2000
[48] 赵英玲，“英语空间性隐喻的特性分析”，《外语学刊》，1999，3
[49] 周榕，“时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究”，《现代外语》，2000，1
[50] 周榕，“隐喻认知基础的心理现实性—时间的空间隐喻表征的实验证据”，《外语教学与研究》，2001，2
[51] 周榕，“隐喻表征性质研究”，《外语教学与研究》，2002，4
[52] 郭锐，“汉语动词的过程结构”，《中国语文》，1993，3
[53] 刘宇生，“汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系”，《中国语文》，1994，3
[54] 吴国盛，《时间的观念》，中国社会科学出版社，1996
[55] 李向农，《现代汉语时点时段研究》，华中师范大学出版社，1997
[56] 张建理，“汉语时间系统中的‘前’，‘后’认知和表达”[J]．浙江大学学报，2003，5
[57] 周榕，黄希庭，“．中英文时间表征的对比探析”[J]西南师范大学学报，1999．
[58] 李振华et al．《最新牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》[Z]．太原：山西人民出版社，1991．
[59] 刘源et al．《现代汉语常用词词频词典》[Z]．北京：宇航出版社，1990．
[60] 梅家驹et al．《现代汉语搭配词典》[Z]．上海：汉语大词典出版社，1999．
[61] 商务印书馆辞书研究中心．《现代汉语词典》[Z]．北京；商务印书馆，2005．
[62] 范文芳，“隐喻理论探究”，《山东外语教学》，1997
[63] 董莉，“空间隐喻的辩证思考”，《解放军外国语学院学报》，2000，3
[64] 耿占春，《隐喻》，北京，东方出版社，19930
[65] 胡壮麟，“科学理论新发现与语言学新思维”，《外语教学与研究》，1999
[66] 林书武，“国外隐喻研究综述”，《外语教学与研究》，1997，
[67] 林书武，“隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势”，《外国语》，2002，5
[68] 聂亚宁，“Beyond的中心-边缘意象图示和空间意义概念隐喻意义初探”，《外语与外教学》，2002，20
[69] 陶文好，“论UP的空间和隐喻特征”，《外语与外与教学》，1997，4
[70] 陶文好，“论up的空间和意义认知”，《外语学刊》，2000，4
[71] 吴国盛，《时间的观念》，北京，中国社会科学出版社，1996，3
[72] 吴静，王瑞东，“空间隐喻的英汉对比研究”，《山东外语教学》，2001，
[73] 于善志，“英语空间介词及其隐喻派生”，《山东师大外国语学院学报》，2002，
[74] 张其的，“运动义动词‘上’，‘下’用法思考”，《语言研究》，1995，6
[75] 赵英玲，“英语空间性隐喻的特征分析”，《外语学刊》，1999，3
[76] 张蓓，“试论隐喻的认知力和文化阐释功能”，《外语教学》，1998，4