名词动用的认知修辞研究
摘要
本研究运用认知语言学理论,同时结合修辞研究的视角,来解释名词动用的言语交际过程。主要内容是以认知语言学为主,结合修辞、对比、心理、语用等理论内容,解释名词动用表达在生成、理解、接受三个交际阶段的认知特点和认知规律。名词动用是语言创新的产物。它和其他语言现象一样有认知、语用、心理等方面的基础。归根结底,它是为了满足人们社会交际的需要而产生和发展的。
全文由七章组成。第一章首先回顾了国内外名词动用研究的内容与发展,着重阐明关于名词动用的国内外研究现状,以及本研究的目标、任务和研究方法。这一章为本研究奠定重要的理论前提和理论基础。第二章通过对英汉名词动用现象的对比,找出两者的异同表现。这章的目的是通过科学分类来描述名词动用在英语和汉语语言系统内的各自表现,归纳和分析英汉语名词动用的特点。第三章继续深入,从语用、心理、认知等方面解释了人们使用名词动用的原因。同时,也分析了名词动用在不同语言里所表现出的异同特征的影响因素。从第四章开始到第六章,我们结合对汉语名词动用实际使用状况的社会调查来解释该现象由产生到理解的认知机制和大脑运作过程。第四章在前人基础上继续讨论了名词动用的生成机制问题,主要探讨了转喻和隐喻在名词动用过程中交互作用的规律。第五章分析了名词动用的理解机制和它的接受性问题。我们认为理解名词动用的过程离不开大脑储存知识信息的联结激活与多种信息之间的整合运作。对待名词动用不应该由于它是非常规表达而一味排斥。第六章调查了关于名词动用的使用和理解过程的社会状况与特征并展开相关讨论,用以验证和充实前面的理论探讨。第七章总结,指出本研究的理论与实践意义,提出今后的研究前景。
名词动用在英语和汉语分别被视为构词手段和修辞现象。传统上,国内外学者们从句法、语用、修辞、对比等方面对该现象进行研究。近年来,认知等方面的探讨也有发展。通过对这些研究的归纳整理,我们认为到目前为止名词动用研究总体上经历了由关注其内部结构,到结合语境考察它的语义建构,到研究语言使用者的大脑机制运作三个发展阶段。目前名词动用的跨学科研究不多,相关的英汉对比等方面的研究还有待于加强解释方面的工作等。基于这样的认识,本研究着力在以下方面进行了探讨。
为了寻找能够顾及语言各主要层面并且对名词动用现象能够全面概括地进行描述的分类,我们考察和对比了现有的若干名词动用分类标准。其中,Dirven(1986)和Clark & Clark(1979)的分类相比之下更能够满足要求。前者的分类较为概括笼统,后者的分类更直观具体。从Dirven的分类更容易观察出英汉语名词动用的共性特征,而在Clark & Clark的分类下不同语言中的名词动用的差异得到更明显地体现。这一方面体现了语言共性反映思维共性,另一方面也表明名词动用现象因受到特定语言系统总体模式的规定和调整、文化背景差异等的影响而呈现语言个性表征。
人们之所以选择使用名词动用这种表达方式,是由于语言系统、语用、心理、认知等多方面的因素造成的。从语言本身来看,语言贫困和语言的模式规定性是导致名词动用表达方式产生并且在不同语言有不同特征的重要原因。选择名词动用表达方式时使用者必须遵循若干语用原则。求新求简求异的社会心理需要也促使人们选择这种表达方式。而且,名词动用表达本身也具有能够吸引受话人的注意力、凸显说话人的独特视角等认知功效,帮助说话人主动引导受话人的认知识解过程,获得说话人期望的交际效果。另外,名词动用表达之所以有简洁、诙谐、新颖等特殊的修辞效果,也离不开认知因素的作用。其中,简洁是最基本的修辞效果之一,其它修辞效果都主要由简洁派生而来。
关于名词动用的认知机制,本研究主要探讨的是转喻和隐喻的相互作用在名词动用过程中的特点和表现,以及通过对现代汉语名词动用实例的分析来解释转喻是比隐喻更基本的认知识解方式。首先,我们应用来自语言学其它分支、心理科学、认知科学等的证据来证明转喻机制是人类基本认知方式这一论断有普遍的理论基础。其次,通过实例分析,我们认为,大部分的名词动用表达都是转喻和隐喻共同作用的结果。两者共同作用的方式由简单到复杂,存在多种途径。其中,如果只有隐喻没有转喻,就很难形成名词动用表达;有些名词动用只由转喻过程产生。
从认知方式上看,产生名词动用的转喻和隐喻认知识解过程也发生于受话人理解名词动用的过程中,只是在顺序和特点上有区别。实际上,转喻和隐喻本身也是由更基础的大脑运作复杂作用到一定阶段的产物。我们结合认知心理学目前的研究,认为:人们在理解名词动用时,大脑接受外部输入后所进行的信息加工过程包含更基本的认知操作:大脑储存信息与输入信息之间的联结激活和多重信息之间的整合。信息输入之后与大脑原有的知识系统的相关内容联结。不同的联结有不同的联结强度,强度值高的被激活,反之被抑制。大脑对众多的激活内容进行分析合成,整合的结果是大脑对某事物或事件获得新的认知。联结激活或抑制大脑既有的知识链接,改变原先的联结强度;整合在相同或不同的认知框架内部的不同知识内容间寻求匹配,把新的信息与大脑既有的知识系统加以融和,形成对事物的新的认知。知识之间的联结为整合提供基础,整合的产物可能成为新的联结对象,也能够直接进入下一轮的整合过程。大脑中联结与整合的交互作用实现人类不断认识和理解外部世界的任务。
由于名词动用是语言创新的重要手段,对于它和语言规范化之间的关系问题一直存在观点上的分歧。我们结合汉语名词动用的社会接受现状,依据我国语言规范化工作的标准和要求,对名词动用和语言规范之间的关系进行分析,认为不应该把名词动用现象一味地排除于语言规范之外,而应该对之采取宽容的态度用动态的标准来衡量和预测,实事求是、因势利导,去糟取精。科学解决名词动用和语言规范化之间的关系,不仅能够有助于正确地对待名词动用现象,推动语言发展,而且有助于在语言教学中加强对学生使用名词动用的正确引导,减少误用、滥用现象。
为了验证和充实理论讨论,我们在调查名词动用的社会接受状况的同时还对该表达方式的选择和理解过程也作了调查和讨论。调查的主要方式包括访谈和问卷。访谈的对象包括安徽、上海、浙江三省市不同行业的从业者和研究生,问卷以浙江工业大学和合肥师范学院的本科学生为对象,学科专业不限。结果表明:要使用名词动用必须满足一定的条件;除了使用和理解名词动用的认知过程表现出普遍规律之外,名词动用的实际交际过程还受到不同使用者在文化、职业、亲疏关系、地域、教育等各方面差异的制约,这使不同的社会人群在使用名词动用时体现出若干个性特征。
本研究的主要特点是:从范畴语义入手,多学科结合,动态地考察名词动用现象。其中,描述与解释相结合,实证与理论相结合,语言学与心理学、认知科学等其它学科相结合。我们希望通过这个研究深化对名词动用现象及对人类语言认知规律的认识,推动本领域及相关领域研究的发展。
This study aims at explaining, from the cognitive and rhetoric perspectives, how people use denominal verb to communicate. Such a communication involves the production, the comprehension and the acceptance of denominal-verb structures. Evidences from cognitive science, psychology, information science, etc. are considered. Moreover, an investigation on the daily use of denominal verb is conducted to verify the theory constructed here.
Before explaining how denominal verb is chosen, produced, understood and accepted, English and Chinese denominal verbs are contrasted. We choose Clark & Clark’s (1979) and Dirven’s (1986) criteria of classification to classify denominal verbs and to contrast English and Chinese denominal verbs. The reasons for their differences and similarities are explained. Both Clark & Clark and Dirven take semantics, syntax, and vocabulary into consideration. The former’s classification is finer, while that of the latter is more general. English and Chinese denominal verbs demonstrate similar features by Dirven’s criterion of classification. By Clark & Clark’s criterion, however, Chinese and English denominal verbs are different in various aspects. The reasons are that verb is the center in a sentence in both English and Chinese, that verbalization is an efficient way of improving a concept’s degree of salience in a sentence, and that the cognitive process which results in conceptual salience works universally. With regard to using denominal verb expressions in a certain context, the differences in English and Chinese users’way of thinking, cultural backgrounds, etc. impinge on their cognitive operation, and thus come to different consequences in their utterances.
In the process of communication, the communicators depend on their cognitive capacity to choose, understand and accept denominal verbs. Such mechanisms as metonymy, metaphor, and psychological image are of significance in a cognitive process. Based on the analysis of the communicative features and linguistic characteristics of denominal verb, this study explains the operation of cognitive mechanisms in each stage of the communication, and the interaction of context, psychological factors with cognition when a person uses denominal verb to communicate.
There are many reasons for language users’choice of denominal verb to express themselves. The development of a language has to follow its own rules and regulations. Vocabulary poverty could occur with the development of society. When communicating, a person is supposed to be efficient, cooperative as well as polite. Expressions with simplicity and novelty are most attractive. All these affect language users’choice of denominal verb. Besides, social factors, such as the political and economic development of the society, the change of life tempo, etc., affect language variation like denominal verb, too. To utter a denominal verb expression is to operate a cognitive process on language knowledge stored in the brain to convey specific information in a certain context to the receiver. The above-mentioned factors also have an effect on the utterance.
Not all nouns could be used to perform the syntactic function of verb. There exist many restrictions from vocabulary, semantics, and pragmatics on the choice of parent nouns. Rhetoric constrains on the converse from nouns to verbs are discussed in Chapter 3.
Researches from cognitive linguistics have shown that metonymy is one of the important cognitive mechanisms in producing denominal verb expressions. Evidences from psycholinguistics and construction grammar demonstrate that a relation of contiguity exists between the meaning of a verbalized word and that of the whole utterance containing the word, and that such a relation of contiguity also exists between the frame part designated by the meaning of a verbalized word and the whole frame designated by the utterance containing the word. In this way, the role of metonymy as one of the essential cognitive mechanisms is proved not only by cognitive linguistics but also by psychology and grammatical studies.
The idea that metonymy and metaphor interact with each other is agreed by more and more scholars. Some people believe that metonymy could be part of metaphor, and metaphor could be part of metonymy as well. Some believe that only metonymy could be part of metaphor, while metaphor could never be part of metonymy. To find out how the two interact with each other in denominal verb expressions, this study examines more than 170 examples from Chinese. Half of them are produced by metonymy without interacting with metaphor; almost no Chinese denominal verb is produced by metaphorical mechanism without interacting with metonymy; when a denominal verb is produced by way of the interaction of metonymy and metaphor, metonymy could be part of metaphor, and metaphor could also be part of metonymy.
The comprehension of denominal verb expression gives expression to the“connecting-integrating”mode, which involves information processing and storing. Fauconnier (2002) suggests that identity, integration and imagination are three necessities for meaning comprehension and expansion. Identity and imagination related cognitive operations in the brain on meaning construction are able to be generally explained by way of connectionism. But certain imaginary scenes are products of integration, which aims at finding out the identities and discrepancies between two objects so as to form reasonable matches among components and to obtain new meanings by blending. The function of integration cannot be replaced by that of connectionism. To understand the meaning of a denominal verb, a receiver not only need adjust the connections among stored knowledge, but also need carefully evaluate the degree of match between a verbalized word and its parent noun. He should acquaint himself with the two words’similarities and differences in meaning, and then blend this new knowledge with the existing network of knowledge in the brain in order to obtain new concepts and meanings to be integrated into his network of knowledge.
To be specific, the input of a denominal verb tends to activate or inhibit the receiver’s related knowledge and experience. The new input blends and compresses with the existing knowledge. In this way, the input of denominal verb changes the receiver’s network of knowledge in the brain. Consequently, the receiver achieves better understanding or adjusts his idea to current context. Furthermore, compression and decompression both exist in the process of integration. A speaker would compress certain amount of information in a denominal-verb structure and, in turn, a receiver would decompress such a structure so as to recognize the whole event frame and the main objects in it, to recognize the relationship between the main object and other objects in the frame.
In such a“connecting-integrating”mode, connection is the basis of integration and integration guarantees new connections. Category and the communicator’s capacity of categorization is the basic condition for the comprehension of denominal verb. The receiver is supposed to set up new connections between knowledge and experience, and to integrate new knowledge with one’s existing knowledge system. To realize this, one need convert members of different categories by practicing his capacity of categorization and recategorization.
Acceptance is closely related to comprehension, for comprehension can enhance acceptance, while acceptance does not ensure comprehension but promotes it. This study explains factors that influence the acceptance of denominal verb and suggested certain ways of improving its acceptance from the cognitive and the rhetoric perspectives. Besides the important factor of context, information error is also of value. Information error results from the interaction among cognitive mechanisms, personal factors, etc. when an individual is constructing semantics. Information error is controlled by way of cognition. In order to explain how to improve the acceptance of denominal verb, the study discusses the psychological basis and the features of the acceptance of denominal verb, and then suggests that there are at least two ways to be adopted: one is to realize the balance between one’s own needs and the hearer’s needs; the other is to realize the identity between the speaker’s background context and that of the hearer’s. Both depend on the effort of the speaker to take the receiver’s psychology, behavioral patterns and background into consideration and to adjust his arrangement of linguistic units.
In order to provide further evidence to the theory, this study investigats the use of denominal verb in daily life. The investigation is to prove such a hypothesis: on the one hand, metonymy and metaphor are two basic cognitive mechanisms that impact upon the production of denominal verb. On the other hand, due to the influence of language, society, culture, the user’s personal factors such as age, gender, and habits, different individuals show differences in choosing and using means of expression, in degrees of acceptance, ways of acceptance, and speed of comprehension. The investigation involves interviews and questionnaires. Questions are asked about reasons and conditions of using denominal verb, the comprehending process, attitudes towards denominal verb expressions, and ways of acceptance. There are over 20 interviewees of different ages working in different fields. The results of the interviews reveal the influence of age and profession on the use of denominal verb. The questionnaires are given in random to university students in two cities. These students have different majors, hobbies, genders, grades, etc. The outcome of the investigation confirms the theoretical hypothesis, and thus provides empirical support for the above theoretical study.
全文由七章组成。第一章首先回顾了国内外名词动用研究的内容与发展,着重阐明关于名词动用的国内外研究现状,以及本研究的目标、任务和研究方法。这一章为本研究奠定重要的理论前提和理论基础。第二章通过对英汉名词动用现象的对比,找出两者的异同表现。这章的目的是通过科学分类来描述名词动用在英语和汉语语言系统内的各自表现,归纳和分析英汉语名词动用的特点。第三章继续深入,从语用、心理、认知等方面解释了人们使用名词动用的原因。同时,也分析了名词动用在不同语言里所表现出的异同特征的影响因素。从第四章开始到第六章,我们结合对汉语名词动用实际使用状况的社会调查来解释该现象由产生到理解的认知机制和大脑运作过程。第四章在前人基础上继续讨论了名词动用的生成机制问题,主要探讨了转喻和隐喻在名词动用过程中交互作用的规律。第五章分析了名词动用的理解机制和它的接受性问题。我们认为理解名词动用的过程离不开大脑储存知识信息的联结激活与多种信息之间的整合运作。对待名词动用不应该由于它是非常规表达而一味排斥。第六章调查了关于名词动用的使用和理解过程的社会状况与特征并展开相关讨论,用以验证和充实前面的理论探讨。第七章总结,指出本研究的理论与实践意义,提出今后的研究前景。
名词动用在英语和汉语分别被视为构词手段和修辞现象。传统上,国内外学者们从句法、语用、修辞、对比等方面对该现象进行研究。近年来,认知等方面的探讨也有发展。通过对这些研究的归纳整理,我们认为到目前为止名词动用研究总体上经历了由关注其内部结构,到结合语境考察它的语义建构,到研究语言使用者的大脑机制运作三个发展阶段。目前名词动用的跨学科研究不多,相关的英汉对比等方面的研究还有待于加强解释方面的工作等。基于这样的认识,本研究着力在以下方面进行了探讨。
为了寻找能够顾及语言各主要层面并且对名词动用现象能够全面概括地进行描述的分类,我们考察和对比了现有的若干名词动用分类标准。其中,Dirven(1986)和Clark & Clark(1979)的分类相比之下更能够满足要求。前者的分类较为概括笼统,后者的分类更直观具体。从Dirven的分类更容易观察出英汉语名词动用的共性特征,而在Clark & Clark的分类下不同语言中的名词动用的差异得到更明显地体现。这一方面体现了语言共性反映思维共性,另一方面也表明名词动用现象因受到特定语言系统总体模式的规定和调整、文化背景差异等的影响而呈现语言个性表征。
人们之所以选择使用名词动用这种表达方式,是由于语言系统、语用、心理、认知等多方面的因素造成的。从语言本身来看,语言贫困和语言的模式规定性是导致名词动用表达方式产生并且在不同语言有不同特征的重要原因。选择名词动用表达方式时使用者必须遵循若干语用原则。求新求简求异的社会心理需要也促使人们选择这种表达方式。而且,名词动用表达本身也具有能够吸引受话人的注意力、凸显说话人的独特视角等认知功效,帮助说话人主动引导受话人的认知识解过程,获得说话人期望的交际效果。另外,名词动用表达之所以有简洁、诙谐、新颖等特殊的修辞效果,也离不开认知因素的作用。其中,简洁是最基本的修辞效果之一,其它修辞效果都主要由简洁派生而来。
关于名词动用的认知机制,本研究主要探讨的是转喻和隐喻的相互作用在名词动用过程中的特点和表现,以及通过对现代汉语名词动用实例的分析来解释转喻是比隐喻更基本的认知识解方式。首先,我们应用来自语言学其它分支、心理科学、认知科学等的证据来证明转喻机制是人类基本认知方式这一论断有普遍的理论基础。其次,通过实例分析,我们认为,大部分的名词动用表达都是转喻和隐喻共同作用的结果。两者共同作用的方式由简单到复杂,存在多种途径。其中,如果只有隐喻没有转喻,就很难形成名词动用表达;有些名词动用只由转喻过程产生。
从认知方式上看,产生名词动用的转喻和隐喻认知识解过程也发生于受话人理解名词动用的过程中,只是在顺序和特点上有区别。实际上,转喻和隐喻本身也是由更基础的大脑运作复杂作用到一定阶段的产物。我们结合认知心理学目前的研究,认为:人们在理解名词动用时,大脑接受外部输入后所进行的信息加工过程包含更基本的认知操作:大脑储存信息与输入信息之间的联结激活和多重信息之间的整合。信息输入之后与大脑原有的知识系统的相关内容联结。不同的联结有不同的联结强度,强度值高的被激活,反之被抑制。大脑对众多的激活内容进行分析合成,整合的结果是大脑对某事物或事件获得新的认知。联结激活或抑制大脑既有的知识链接,改变原先的联结强度;整合在相同或不同的认知框架内部的不同知识内容间寻求匹配,把新的信息与大脑既有的知识系统加以融和,形成对事物的新的认知。知识之间的联结为整合提供基础,整合的产物可能成为新的联结对象,也能够直接进入下一轮的整合过程。大脑中联结与整合的交互作用实现人类不断认识和理解外部世界的任务。
由于名词动用是语言创新的重要手段,对于它和语言规范化之间的关系问题一直存在观点上的分歧。我们结合汉语名词动用的社会接受现状,依据我国语言规范化工作的标准和要求,对名词动用和语言规范之间的关系进行分析,认为不应该把名词动用现象一味地排除于语言规范之外,而应该对之采取宽容的态度用动态的标准来衡量和预测,实事求是、因势利导,去糟取精。科学解决名词动用和语言规范化之间的关系,不仅能够有助于正确地对待名词动用现象,推动语言发展,而且有助于在语言教学中加强对学生使用名词动用的正确引导,减少误用、滥用现象。
为了验证和充实理论讨论,我们在调查名词动用的社会接受状况的同时还对该表达方式的选择和理解过程也作了调查和讨论。调查的主要方式包括访谈和问卷。访谈的对象包括安徽、上海、浙江三省市不同行业的从业者和研究生,问卷以浙江工业大学和合肥师范学院的本科学生为对象,学科专业不限。结果表明:要使用名词动用必须满足一定的条件;除了使用和理解名词动用的认知过程表现出普遍规律之外,名词动用的实际交际过程还受到不同使用者在文化、职业、亲疏关系、地域、教育等各方面差异的制约,这使不同的社会人群在使用名词动用时体现出若干个性特征。
本研究的主要特点是:从范畴语义入手,多学科结合,动态地考察名词动用现象。其中,描述与解释相结合,实证与理论相结合,语言学与心理学、认知科学等其它学科相结合。我们希望通过这个研究深化对名词动用现象及对人类语言认知规律的认识,推动本领域及相关领域研究的发展。
This study aims at explaining, from the cognitive and rhetoric perspectives, how people use denominal verb to communicate. Such a communication involves the production, the comprehension and the acceptance of denominal-verb structures. Evidences from cognitive science, psychology, information science, etc. are considered. Moreover, an investigation on the daily use of denominal verb is conducted to verify the theory constructed here.
Before explaining how denominal verb is chosen, produced, understood and accepted, English and Chinese denominal verbs are contrasted. We choose Clark & Clark’s (1979) and Dirven’s (1986) criteria of classification to classify denominal verbs and to contrast English and Chinese denominal verbs. The reasons for their differences and similarities are explained. Both Clark & Clark and Dirven take semantics, syntax, and vocabulary into consideration. The former’s classification is finer, while that of the latter is more general. English and Chinese denominal verbs demonstrate similar features by Dirven’s criterion of classification. By Clark & Clark’s criterion, however, Chinese and English denominal verbs are different in various aspects. The reasons are that verb is the center in a sentence in both English and Chinese, that verbalization is an efficient way of improving a concept’s degree of salience in a sentence, and that the cognitive process which results in conceptual salience works universally. With regard to using denominal verb expressions in a certain context, the differences in English and Chinese users’way of thinking, cultural backgrounds, etc. impinge on their cognitive operation, and thus come to different consequences in their utterances.
In the process of communication, the communicators depend on their cognitive capacity to choose, understand and accept denominal verbs. Such mechanisms as metonymy, metaphor, and psychological image are of significance in a cognitive process. Based on the analysis of the communicative features and linguistic characteristics of denominal verb, this study explains the operation of cognitive mechanisms in each stage of the communication, and the interaction of context, psychological factors with cognition when a person uses denominal verb to communicate.
There are many reasons for language users’choice of denominal verb to express themselves. The development of a language has to follow its own rules and regulations. Vocabulary poverty could occur with the development of society. When communicating, a person is supposed to be efficient, cooperative as well as polite. Expressions with simplicity and novelty are most attractive. All these affect language users’choice of denominal verb. Besides, social factors, such as the political and economic development of the society, the change of life tempo, etc., affect language variation like denominal verb, too. To utter a denominal verb expression is to operate a cognitive process on language knowledge stored in the brain to convey specific information in a certain context to the receiver. The above-mentioned factors also have an effect on the utterance.
Not all nouns could be used to perform the syntactic function of verb. There exist many restrictions from vocabulary, semantics, and pragmatics on the choice of parent nouns. Rhetoric constrains on the converse from nouns to verbs are discussed in Chapter 3.
Researches from cognitive linguistics have shown that metonymy is one of the important cognitive mechanisms in producing denominal verb expressions. Evidences from psycholinguistics and construction grammar demonstrate that a relation of contiguity exists between the meaning of a verbalized word and that of the whole utterance containing the word, and that such a relation of contiguity also exists between the frame part designated by the meaning of a verbalized word and the whole frame designated by the utterance containing the word. In this way, the role of metonymy as one of the essential cognitive mechanisms is proved not only by cognitive linguistics but also by psychology and grammatical studies.
The idea that metonymy and metaphor interact with each other is agreed by more and more scholars. Some people believe that metonymy could be part of metaphor, and metaphor could be part of metonymy as well. Some believe that only metonymy could be part of metaphor, while metaphor could never be part of metonymy. To find out how the two interact with each other in denominal verb expressions, this study examines more than 170 examples from Chinese. Half of them are produced by metonymy without interacting with metaphor; almost no Chinese denominal verb is produced by metaphorical mechanism without interacting with metonymy; when a denominal verb is produced by way of the interaction of metonymy and metaphor, metonymy could be part of metaphor, and metaphor could also be part of metonymy.
The comprehension of denominal verb expression gives expression to the“connecting-integrating”mode, which involves information processing and storing. Fauconnier (2002) suggests that identity, integration and imagination are three necessities for meaning comprehension and expansion. Identity and imagination related cognitive operations in the brain on meaning construction are able to be generally explained by way of connectionism. But certain imaginary scenes are products of integration, which aims at finding out the identities and discrepancies between two objects so as to form reasonable matches among components and to obtain new meanings by blending. The function of integration cannot be replaced by that of connectionism. To understand the meaning of a denominal verb, a receiver not only need adjust the connections among stored knowledge, but also need carefully evaluate the degree of match between a verbalized word and its parent noun. He should acquaint himself with the two words’similarities and differences in meaning, and then blend this new knowledge with the existing network of knowledge in the brain in order to obtain new concepts and meanings to be integrated into his network of knowledge.
To be specific, the input of a denominal verb tends to activate or inhibit the receiver’s related knowledge and experience. The new input blends and compresses with the existing knowledge. In this way, the input of denominal verb changes the receiver’s network of knowledge in the brain. Consequently, the receiver achieves better understanding or adjusts his idea to current context. Furthermore, compression and decompression both exist in the process of integration. A speaker would compress certain amount of information in a denominal-verb structure and, in turn, a receiver would decompress such a structure so as to recognize the whole event frame and the main objects in it, to recognize the relationship between the main object and other objects in the frame.
In such a“connecting-integrating”mode, connection is the basis of integration and integration guarantees new connections. Category and the communicator’s capacity of categorization is the basic condition for the comprehension of denominal verb. The receiver is supposed to set up new connections between knowledge and experience, and to integrate new knowledge with one’s existing knowledge system. To realize this, one need convert members of different categories by practicing his capacity of categorization and recategorization.
Acceptance is closely related to comprehension, for comprehension can enhance acceptance, while acceptance does not ensure comprehension but promotes it. This study explains factors that influence the acceptance of denominal verb and suggested certain ways of improving its acceptance from the cognitive and the rhetoric perspectives. Besides the important factor of context, information error is also of value. Information error results from the interaction among cognitive mechanisms, personal factors, etc. when an individual is constructing semantics. Information error is controlled by way of cognition. In order to explain how to improve the acceptance of denominal verb, the study discusses the psychological basis and the features of the acceptance of denominal verb, and then suggests that there are at least two ways to be adopted: one is to realize the balance between one’s own needs and the hearer’s needs; the other is to realize the identity between the speaker’s background context and that of the hearer’s. Both depend on the effort of the speaker to take the receiver’s psychology, behavioral patterns and background into consideration and to adjust his arrangement of linguistic units.
In order to provide further evidence to the theory, this study investigats the use of denominal verb in daily life. The investigation is to prove such a hypothesis: on the one hand, metonymy and metaphor are two basic cognitive mechanisms that impact upon the production of denominal verb. On the other hand, due to the influence of language, society, culture, the user’s personal factors such as age, gender, and habits, different individuals show differences in choosing and using means of expression, in degrees of acceptance, ways of acceptance, and speed of comprehension. The investigation involves interviews and questionnaires. Questions are asked about reasons and conditions of using denominal verb, the comprehending process, attitudes towards denominal verb expressions, and ways of acceptance. There are over 20 interviewees of different ages working in different fields. The results of the interviews reveal the influence of age and profession on the use of denominal verb. The questionnaires are given in random to university students in two cities. These students have different majors, hobbies, genders, grades, etc. The outcome of the investigation confirms the theoretical hypothesis, and thus provides empirical support for the above theoretical study.
引文
Adams, V. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. London: Longman.
Atlas, J & S.Levinson.1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical from[A]. In P.Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press.1-61.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bolinger, D. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2: 119-127.
Bolinger, D. & D. A. Sears. 1981. Aspects of Language (3rd version). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. London: the University of Chicago Press.
Chan, K.M. & James H-Y. Tai. 1995. From nouns to verbs: verbalization in Chinese dialects and East Asian languages. In J. Camacho and L. Choueiri (eds.). Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. NACCL-6. Volume II. Los Angeles: Graduate Students in Linguistics (GSIL), USC.
Clark, E.V. & H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 4: 767-811.
Coulson, S & T. Oakley. 2000. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4): 175-196.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar : Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
Dirven , R. 1986. Can case grammar cope with conversion. Annales Universitis Scientiarum Budapestinensis Sectis Linguistica. 17.
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. in Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterda/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dirven, R. & R. P?rings. 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar (2nd edition). London: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces : Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg,A. (ed.), Conceptual Structure and Discourse. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 144-187.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
Feyaerts, K. 2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, ed. Barcelona. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole, ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul:Hashin.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6.2: 222-254.
Gibbs, R. W. 1990. Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16(1): 56-66.
Gibbs, R. W. 2000. Making good psychology out of blending theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 347-358.
Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7/1: 183-206.
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. 1995. Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 323-340.
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (ed). 1983. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heusinger, K. & Christoph Schwarze. 2002. Underspecification in the semantics of word-formation——The case of denominal verbs of removal in Italian.Arbeitspapier 111: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universit?t Konstanz. URL: http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2003/951/
Hofstadter, D., Godel, Escher & Bach. 1979. An Eteral Golden Brain. N. Y. Basic Book.
Hopper, J & E. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. London: Oxford University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, VI: Morphology. Gopenhagan: Mundsgaard.
Kelly, M. H. 1998. Rule and idiosyncratically derived denominal verbs: effects on language production and comprehension . Memory and Cognition, 26: 369-381.
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. Proceedings of the Mid-American Linguistics Conference. Kansas: Lawrence.
Kiparsky, P. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In A, Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.). Argument Structure. Stanford: CSLI.
Langacker, R. 1987/2004. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol.1). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Levin, B. & T. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical subordination. CLS 24, Part 1: 275-289.
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation (2nd ed.). München: Beck.
Marvin, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. P. H. New York: McCraw-Hill.
McCawley, J. M. 1971. Prelexical syntax: linguistic developments of the sixties ---- viewpoints for the seventies. In R. J. O’Brien (ed.). Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University, 24.
Mecken, H.. L. 1974. The American Language. New York: Alfred·A·Knopf. Morris, W. & M. Morris. 1975. Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Morris, R. G. 1989. Parallel Distributed Processing: Inplication for Psychology andNeurobiology. Clarendon press, Oxford.
Panther, K. & G. Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterda/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Persson,G. 1990. Meanings,Models and Metaphors / A Study in Lexical Semantics in English. Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell International.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. 1996. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Plag, I. 2002. Word-formation in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svarvik. 1985. A Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 1999. From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Linguistic LAUD Agency. University of Essen A. General and Theoretical Paper. No.492.
Smolensky, P. 1988. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Science, 11: 1-74.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understand Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Warren, B. 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In Klaus-uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Willy, M. 1997. A frame-based approach to polysemy. In: Cuyckens, Hubert and BrittaZawada (eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zandvoort,R. W. 1961. A Handbook of English Grammar. Groningen: Wolters.
(丹)奥托·叶斯柏森著,何勇等译. 1988版.《语法哲学》.北京:语文出版社.
北京语言学院语言教学研究所. 1985.汉语词汇的统计与分析.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
常宝儒. 1990.《汉语语言心理学》.北京:知识出版社.
陈承泽. 1922.《国文法草创》.北京:商务印书馆.
陈光明. 2004.网络语言的特点及其未来展望.《漳州师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第2期:113-117.
陈群. 1998.谈谈名词活用的表达效果,《修辞学习》第3期:35.
陈望道. 1979.《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
程琪龙. 1999.《认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础》.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
程琪龙. 2006.《概念框架与认知》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
戴昭铭. 1998.《规范语言学探索》.上海:三联书社.
丁声树. 1979.《现代汉语语法讲话》.北京:商务印书馆.
冯广艺. 2004.《变异修辞学》.武汉:湖北教育出版社.
高芳、徐盛桓.2000a.名动转用和语用推理.《外国语》第2期: 7-14.
高芳、徐盛桓.2000b.名动转用语用推理的认知策略.《外语与外语教学》第4期:13-16.
高芳. 2002.名动转用与含意.《外语教学》第2期:12-18.
桂诗春. 1995.从“这个地方很郊区”谈起.《语言文字应用》第3期:24-28.
韩华. 2004.新词语产生的民众因素透视.《河南教育学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第2期:69-71.
何星. 2006. A Study of Denominal Verbs in English and Chinese: From the Perspective of Cognitive Linguistics.上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
胡明扬. 1995.动名兼类的计量考察.《语言研究》第2期:91-99.
胡裕树. 1995.《现代汉语(修订本)》.上海:上海教育出版社.
[英]Jane Archison著,徐家祯译. 1997.《语言的变化:进步还是退化?》.北京:语文出版社.
贾林祥. 2006.《联结主义认知心理学》.上海:上海教育出版社.
姜望琪. 2003.《当代语用学》.北京:北京大学出版社.
竟成. 1985.现代汉语里的名作动用.《语言教学与研究》第1期:69-74.
金兆梓. 1983版.《国文法之研究》.北京:商务印书馆.
拉波夫. 2001.《拉波夫自选集》.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
李辉望、郝进仕、石莉. 2003.英语名词动用的语义表达及其理解.《湖北师范学院学报》第1期:102-105.
林秉璋、刘世平. 2005.《英语词汇学引论(第三版)》.武汉:武汉大学出版社.
刘国辉. 2004.名词与动词的认知问题以及转换效用.《外语教学》第5期:36-41.
刘鹏. 2003.语文规范化纵横谈.《宜春学院学报(社会科学版)》第3期:81-83.
刘正光. 2000.名词动用过程中的隐喻思维.《外语教学与研究》第5期:335-339.
刘正光. 2002.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系.《现代外语》第1期:61-70.
刘正光. 2006.《语言非范畴化——语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘正光. 2007.《隐喻的认知研究——理论与实践》.长沙:湖南人民出版社.
陆俭明. 2005.《现代汉语语法研究教程(第三版)》.北京:北京大学出版社.
陆国强. 1983.《现代英语词汇学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
吕叔湘. 1979.《汉语语法分析问题》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘. 1989.未晚斋语文漫谈.《中国语文》第5期:397-398.
吕叔湘. 1989.《吕叔湘自选集》.上海:上海教育出版社.
吕叔湘. 1990.《吕叔湘文集》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘、马庆株主编. 1999.《语法研究入门》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘、朱德熙.1952.《语法修辞讲话》.北京:开明书店.
牛保义. 2002.名转动结构式中的功能代谢问题研究.《外语学刊》第1期:57-62.
沈家煊. 1999.《不对称与标记论》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
沈家煊. 2006.对语言生活、语言规范的思考——在语言文字规范化工作学术研讨会开幕式上的发言.《现代语文》第4期:12.
沈怀兴.1992.汉语规范化求疵.《语文建设》第11期:25.
沈志和. 2005.动物名词作动词时的理解与翻译.《柳州师专学报》第1期: 66-70.
施春宏.1999.现代汉语规范化的规则本位和语用本位.《语文建设》第1期: 43-49.
石毓智. 2000.《语法的认知语义基础》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
史存直. 1986.《汉语语法史纲要》.上海:华东师大出版社.
束定芳. 2000.《隐喻学研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳. 2008.《认知语义学》.上海:上海教育出版社.
司显柱. 1996.英汉名转动词比较研究.《外国语》第3期:54-58.
隋晓冰. 2005.《现代英语词汇学概论》.哈尔滨:哈尔滨工程大学出版社.
孙荣实. 2003.《汉语新词语运用研究》.复旦大学博士学位论文.
汪榕培、李冬. 1988.《实用英语词汇学》.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社.
王冬梅. 2001.《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》.中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文.
王力. 1980.《汉语史稿》.北京:中华书局.
王占馥. 2006.《语法修辞新论》.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,
吴景荣、王建之. 1990.英汉词性漫谈.杨自俭、李瑞华编.《英汉对比研究论文集》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
伍铁平. 1985.《模糊语言学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
夏中华. 2001.“纯洁语言刍议——兼谈建国以来语言规范化工作”.《锦州师范学院学报》第3期: 52-55.
邢福义. 1993.词类问题的思考.《邢福义自选集》.郑州:河南教育出版社.
邢福义. 1997.“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考,《语言研究》第2期:1-10.
熊学亮. 1999.《认知语用学概论》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓. 1981.论英语名——动词的转化.《山东外语教学》第1期:3-13.
徐盛桓. 2001a.名动转用的语义基础.《外国语》第1期:15-23.
徐盛桓. 2001b.名动转用与功能代谢.《外语与外语教学》第8期:2-5.
徐通锵. 1998.说“字”——附论语言基本结构单位的鉴别标准、基本特征和它的语言理论建设的关系.《语文研究》第3期.
尹世超. 2002.《汉语语法修辞论集》.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
于根元. 1991.副+名.《语文建设》第1期:19-22.
[德]约翰内斯·恩格尔坎普著,陈国鹏译. 1997译本.《心理语言学》.上海:上海译文出版社.
张伯江、方梅. 1996.《汉语功能语法研究》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
张传彪. 2005“名词肿胀症”与英语“名动转用”.《湖州师范学院学报》第6期: 35-39.
张文国. 2005.《古汉语名动词类转变及其发展》.北京:中华书局.
张韵斐. 2004.《现代汉语词汇学概论》.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
张之强. 1984.《古代汉语》.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
赵沁平.2006.关注社会语言生活,做好语言文字规范化工作——在语言文字规范化工作学术研讨会开幕式上的讲话.《现代语文》第4期:11.
周领顺. 2000.英汉名-动转类词对比研究.《外语教学与研究》第5期:340-344.
周领顺. 2003.名转动词的变异的本与度.《外语与外语教学》第4期:14-17.
周领顺、李速立. 2006.我国的英汉转类词研究.《外语教学》第4期:19-22.
朱德熙. 1983.自指和转指:汉语名词化标记“的,者,所,之”的语法功能和语义功能.《方言》第1期.
朱景松.1995.汉语规范化的成功实践.《语言文字应用》第4期:34.
朱文俊. 1994.《现代英语语言与文化研究》.北京:北京语言学院出版社.
Atlas, J & S.Levinson.1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical from[A]. In P.Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press.1-61.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bolinger, D. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2: 119-127.
Bolinger, D. & D. A. Sears. 1981. Aspects of Language (3rd version). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. London: the University of Chicago Press.
Chan, K.M. & James H-Y. Tai. 1995. From nouns to verbs: verbalization in Chinese dialects and East Asian languages. In J. Camacho and L. Choueiri (eds.). Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. NACCL-6. Volume II. Los Angeles: Graduate Students in Linguistics (GSIL), USC.
Clark, E.V. & H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 4: 767-811.
Coulson, S & T. Oakley. 2000. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4): 175-196.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar : Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
Dirven , R. 1986. Can case grammar cope with conversion. Annales Universitis Scientiarum Budapestinensis Sectis Linguistica. 17.
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. in Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterda/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dirven, R. & R. P?rings. 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar (2nd edition). London: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces : Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg,A. (ed.), Conceptual Structure and Discourse. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 144-187.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
Feyaerts, K. 2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, ed. Barcelona. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole, ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul:Hashin.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6.2: 222-254.
Gibbs, R. W. 1990. Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16(1): 56-66.
Gibbs, R. W. 2000. Making good psychology out of blending theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 347-358.
Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7/1: 183-206.
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. 1995. Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 323-340.
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (ed). 1983. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heusinger, K. & Christoph Schwarze. 2002. Underspecification in the semantics of word-formation——The case of denominal verbs of removal in Italian.Arbeitspapier 111: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universit?t Konstanz. URL: http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2003/951/
Hofstadter, D., Godel, Escher & Bach. 1979. An Eteral Golden Brain. N. Y. Basic Book.
Hopper, J & E. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. London: Oxford University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, VI: Morphology. Gopenhagan: Mundsgaard.
Kelly, M. H. 1998. Rule and idiosyncratically derived denominal verbs: effects on language production and comprehension . Memory and Cognition, 26: 369-381.
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. Proceedings of the Mid-American Linguistics Conference. Kansas: Lawrence.
Kiparsky, P. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In A, Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.). Argument Structure. Stanford: CSLI.
Langacker, R. 1987/2004. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol.1). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Levin, B. & T. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical subordination. CLS 24, Part 1: 275-289.
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation (2nd ed.). München: Beck.
Marvin, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. P. H. New York: McCraw-Hill.
McCawley, J. M. 1971. Prelexical syntax: linguistic developments of the sixties ---- viewpoints for the seventies. In R. J. O’Brien (ed.). Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University, 24.
Mecken, H.. L. 1974. The American Language. New York: Alfred·A·Knopf. Morris, W. & M. Morris. 1975. Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Morris, R. G. 1989. Parallel Distributed Processing: Inplication for Psychology andNeurobiology. Clarendon press, Oxford.
Panther, K. & G. Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterda/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Persson,G. 1990. Meanings,Models and Metaphors / A Study in Lexical Semantics in English. Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell International.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. 1996. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Plag, I. 2002. Word-formation in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svarvik. 1985. A Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 1999. From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Linguistic LAUD Agency. University of Essen A. General and Theoretical Paper. No.492.
Smolensky, P. 1988. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Science, 11: 1-74.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understand Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Warren, B. 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In Klaus-uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Willy, M. 1997. A frame-based approach to polysemy. In: Cuyckens, Hubert and BrittaZawada (eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zandvoort,R. W. 1961. A Handbook of English Grammar. Groningen: Wolters.
(丹)奥托·叶斯柏森著,何勇等译. 1988版.《语法哲学》.北京:语文出版社.
北京语言学院语言教学研究所. 1985.汉语词汇的统计与分析.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
常宝儒. 1990.《汉语语言心理学》.北京:知识出版社.
陈承泽. 1922.《国文法草创》.北京:商务印书馆.
陈光明. 2004.网络语言的特点及其未来展望.《漳州师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第2期:113-117.
陈群. 1998.谈谈名词活用的表达效果,《修辞学习》第3期:35.
陈望道. 1979.《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
程琪龙. 1999.《认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础》.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
程琪龙. 2006.《概念框架与认知》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
戴昭铭. 1998.《规范语言学探索》.上海:三联书社.
丁声树. 1979.《现代汉语语法讲话》.北京:商务印书馆.
冯广艺. 2004.《变异修辞学》.武汉:湖北教育出版社.
高芳、徐盛桓.2000a.名动转用和语用推理.《外国语》第2期: 7-14.
高芳、徐盛桓.2000b.名动转用语用推理的认知策略.《外语与外语教学》第4期:13-16.
高芳. 2002.名动转用与含意.《外语教学》第2期:12-18.
桂诗春. 1995.从“这个地方很郊区”谈起.《语言文字应用》第3期:24-28.
韩华. 2004.新词语产生的民众因素透视.《河南教育学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》第2期:69-71.
何星. 2006. A Study of Denominal Verbs in English and Chinese: From the Perspective of Cognitive Linguistics.上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
胡明扬. 1995.动名兼类的计量考察.《语言研究》第2期:91-99.
胡裕树. 1995.《现代汉语(修订本)》.上海:上海教育出版社.
[英]Jane Archison著,徐家祯译. 1997.《语言的变化:进步还是退化?》.北京:语文出版社.
贾林祥. 2006.《联结主义认知心理学》.上海:上海教育出版社.
姜望琪. 2003.《当代语用学》.北京:北京大学出版社.
竟成. 1985.现代汉语里的名作动用.《语言教学与研究》第1期:69-74.
金兆梓. 1983版.《国文法之研究》.北京:商务印书馆.
拉波夫. 2001.《拉波夫自选集》.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
李辉望、郝进仕、石莉. 2003.英语名词动用的语义表达及其理解.《湖北师范学院学报》第1期:102-105.
林秉璋、刘世平. 2005.《英语词汇学引论(第三版)》.武汉:武汉大学出版社.
刘国辉. 2004.名词与动词的认知问题以及转换效用.《外语教学》第5期:36-41.
刘鹏. 2003.语文规范化纵横谈.《宜春学院学报(社会科学版)》第3期:81-83.
刘正光. 2000.名词动用过程中的隐喻思维.《外语教学与研究》第5期:335-339.
刘正光. 2002.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系.《现代外语》第1期:61-70.
刘正光. 2006.《语言非范畴化——语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
刘正光. 2007.《隐喻的认知研究——理论与实践》.长沙:湖南人民出版社.
陆俭明. 2005.《现代汉语语法研究教程(第三版)》.北京:北京大学出版社.
陆国强. 1983.《现代英语词汇学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
吕叔湘. 1979.《汉语语法分析问题》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘. 1989.未晚斋语文漫谈.《中国语文》第5期:397-398.
吕叔湘. 1989.《吕叔湘自选集》.上海:上海教育出版社.
吕叔湘. 1990.《吕叔湘文集》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘、马庆株主编. 1999.《语法研究入门》.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘、朱德熙.1952.《语法修辞讲话》.北京:开明书店.
牛保义. 2002.名转动结构式中的功能代谢问题研究.《外语学刊》第1期:57-62.
沈家煊. 1999.《不对称与标记论》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
沈家煊. 2006.对语言生活、语言规范的思考——在语言文字规范化工作学术研讨会开幕式上的发言.《现代语文》第4期:12.
沈怀兴.1992.汉语规范化求疵.《语文建设》第11期:25.
沈志和. 2005.动物名词作动词时的理解与翻译.《柳州师专学报》第1期: 66-70.
施春宏.1999.现代汉语规范化的规则本位和语用本位.《语文建设》第1期: 43-49.
石毓智. 2000.《语法的认知语义基础》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
史存直. 1986.《汉语语法史纲要》.上海:华东师大出版社.
束定芳. 2000.《隐喻学研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
束定芳. 2008.《认知语义学》.上海:上海教育出版社.
司显柱. 1996.英汉名转动词比较研究.《外国语》第3期:54-58.
隋晓冰. 2005.《现代英语词汇学概论》.哈尔滨:哈尔滨工程大学出版社.
孙荣实. 2003.《汉语新词语运用研究》.复旦大学博士学位论文.
汪榕培、李冬. 1988.《实用英语词汇学》.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社.
王冬梅. 2001.《现代汉语动名互转的认知研究》.中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文.
王力. 1980.《汉语史稿》.北京:中华书局.
王占馥. 2006.《语法修辞新论》.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,
吴景荣、王建之. 1990.英汉词性漫谈.杨自俭、李瑞华编.《英汉对比研究论文集》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
伍铁平. 1985.《模糊语言学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
夏中华. 2001.“纯洁语言刍议——兼谈建国以来语言规范化工作”.《锦州师范学院学报》第3期: 52-55.
邢福义. 1993.词类问题的思考.《邢福义自选集》.郑州:河南教育出版社.
邢福义. 1997.“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考,《语言研究》第2期:1-10.
熊学亮. 1999.《认知语用学概论》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓. 1981.论英语名——动词的转化.《山东外语教学》第1期:3-13.
徐盛桓. 2001a.名动转用的语义基础.《外国语》第1期:15-23.
徐盛桓. 2001b.名动转用与功能代谢.《外语与外语教学》第8期:2-5.
徐通锵. 1998.说“字”——附论语言基本结构单位的鉴别标准、基本特征和它的语言理论建设的关系.《语文研究》第3期.
尹世超. 2002.《汉语语法修辞论集》.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
于根元. 1991.副+名.《语文建设》第1期:19-22.
[德]约翰内斯·恩格尔坎普著,陈国鹏译. 1997译本.《心理语言学》.上海:上海译文出版社.
张伯江、方梅. 1996.《汉语功能语法研究》.南昌:江西教育出版社.
张传彪. 2005“名词肿胀症”与英语“名动转用”.《湖州师范学院学报》第6期: 35-39.
张文国. 2005.《古汉语名动词类转变及其发展》.北京:中华书局.
张韵斐. 2004.《现代汉语词汇学概论》.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
张之强. 1984.《古代汉语》.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
赵沁平.2006.关注社会语言生活,做好语言文字规范化工作——在语言文字规范化工作学术研讨会开幕式上的讲话.《现代语文》第4期:11.
周领顺. 2000.英汉名-动转类词对比研究.《外语教学与研究》第5期:340-344.
周领顺. 2003.名转动词的变异的本与度.《外语与外语教学》第4期:14-17.
周领顺、李速立. 2006.我国的英汉转类词研究.《外语教学》第4期:19-22.
朱德熙. 1983.自指和转指:汉语名词化标记“的,者,所,之”的语法功能和语义功能.《方言》第1期.
朱景松.1995.汉语规范化的成功实践.《语言文字应用》第4期:34.
朱文俊. 1994.《现代英语语言与文化研究》.北京:北京语言学院出版社.