隐喻的多维研究
摘要
20世纪初,语言学研究发生了转向——从语言内部研究语言到从语言外部来关注语言。或者说,通过研究语言来看语言与人的关系、与世界的关系。隐喻作为语言中的一种普遍现象,古往今来,一直受到学者们的关注。它最初作为一种命名活动,不仅仅是给事物一个名称,而是给予事物一个人化的品格,所以,隐喻在人类的精神存在中,牢牢地保留着人与自然的原始关系。隐喻不仅是语言的特性,它本身是人类本质特性的体现,是人类使世界符号化的创造过程。
本文以认知语言学的理论为框架,以隐喻研究为切入点,探讨、分析语言与人及外部世界的关系。全文运用了定性分析的研究方法,以大量、翔实的例证说明了隐喻不仅是语言存在的实体,而且是人类思维的模式,更是人类赖以生存的认知机制。
本文首先回顾了中西方对隐喻研究的历史。西方的隐喻研究历史悠久,并且体系完整。亚里士多德的隐喻观在西方的影响深刻并且全面,在以后各派隐喻理论和观点中都可以看到亚氏理论的影子。尽管中国古人对隐喻研究所使用的术语与西方人所使用的术语不尽相同,但中国对隐喻现象关注的历史可以说与西方一样悠久,诸如“比”、“兴”等现象在诗学、修辞学、文论、演说术等不同领域皆得到探讨和研究。但总的来说,中国对隐喻的研究基本上是停留在修辞层面上,没有形成一个相对独立的研究领域,研究是实用性的和印象式的,缺少理论性的分析。
接着,本文从认知语言学的角度,对隐喻的界定、分类和工作机制进行了论述。实际上,不管是哪种隐喻理论,如亚里士多德(Aristotle 1954)提出的“指称说”(Reference View)和“比较说”(Comparison Theory );昆提良(Quintillion)提出的“替代说”(Substitution View);科特(Kitty, E F. 1989)提出的“转移说”(Transfer View );马修( Matthew, R. J. 1980)等人所持的“变异说”(Anomaly View);肯尼迪( Kennedy, J. M. 1990 )提出的“分类说”(Classification View);理查兹(I. A. Richards)和布莱克(Black, M. 1962)提出的“互动说”(Interaction View)等,他们都从不同的侧面对隐喻进行了探讨,这些理论的实质都是大同小异的——用事物B来表现、说明事物A,即用B的特征来凸显A的本质/本质属性。而莱考夫和约翰逊( Layoff, G. & M. Johnson:1980)提出的“认知隐喻观”(Cognition View)与以上各学说的最大不同之处在于,它认为隐喻不仅仅是一种语言现象,更是一种认知规律,它是人类抽象思维的主要途径之一,是人类使世界秩序化的方式,也是人自身存在的方式。认知隐喻观将隐喻研究进一步提升到了生命本体论的高度。
在认知隐喻观框架中,本文论证了隐喻性语言和隐喻性思维渗透到语言的各个层面。有的学者甚至认为,隐喻几乎可以解释一切语言现象。隐喻使语言世界成为一个有活力的有机生命体,使语言的肌体里有一个整体性的内核,构成语言内所有要素的约束力量,并且贯穿于语言进化的始终。
在论述完上述观点后,本文用了主要的笔墨,从宏观层面,论述了1)隐喻的文化纬度。首先通过研究汉语中隐喻词汇内涵的变化,使人们清楚地看到,中国社会发生了翻天覆地的改变:人性越来越得到尊重,社会越来越开放、进步。其次,通过分析中英特定的文化所形成的特定的概念隐喻体系,论证了不同的概念隐喻决定了人们不同的世界观,决定了人们眼中不同的现实世界。虽然人体隐喻化认知是人类普遍存在的一种认知方式,人类各民族存在着共识文化,不同的民族语言里会有相同的隐喻概念,但是,由于英汉两个民族所处的地理位置、文化背景、宗教信仰等的不同,概念隐喻所折射出的文化特点是不同的,因为语言就是一种世界观,语言本身就是一种文化力量和文化模式。英汉两个民族在认识自身的基础上,通过隐喻机制,经过英汉这两种不同语言的过虑,去认识世界时,便对世界做出了不完全相同的切割和处理。2)隐喻的哲学纬度。传统的经典逻辑是一种严格的二值逻辑:一个命题或判断要么为真,要么为假,除此之外任何其他的逻辑可能性都是不存在的,或者说是错误的。所以,在科学哲学的历史传统中,隐喻一直被认为是一种非逻辑或反逻辑的思维与语言现象。但是, 20世纪后半叶以来,当代认知科学的新发展逐渐揭示出一种事实:在认知主体的实际思维运作过程中,隐喻与逻辑绝非两种毫无关联的离散体;相反,两者在意义的暗示与牵连、概念的生成与转换、语言的理解与交流中互为表里,缺一不可,在认识论和方法论的双重意义上交叉互动,共同发挥其应有的作用。认知隐喻观认为,隐喻思维能力是人与生俱来的,或者说是我们赖以生存的时空所赋予给我们的本质属性,是人类以自身度万物所获得的能超越真假、超越历史、超越此在与彼在、超越物理世界、现实世界、和想象世界的非凡能力。隐喻性思维表面上是反逻辑,实际上是超逻辑思维。换句话说,隐喻是对传统二值逻辑樊篱的超越,它使事物的类属关系或分类空间不再是僵化的、固定不变的,而是在一定条件下不断调适的、不断互动的。隐喻本质地蕴涵着深层次的认知内容,并生动地展现出相应的逻辑特征。隐喻性语言或隐喻性思维昭示出,所谓的“逻辑”、“真实”不过是思维主体的隐喻产物。3)隐喻的应用纬度。隐喻不仅属于语言,也不单单属于思维,还属于人类的一些活动和行为。从自然科学的角度来看,自然的精微较之感官和理解力的精微远远高出若干倍,因此,人们所醉心的一切——像煞有介事的沉思、揣想和诠释,等等,实如盲人暗摸,离题甚远。更何况,“自在之物”处于现象的彼岸,实在并不是径直地呈现给我们的,在客观实在与认知主体之间隔着一道“外观之幕”(veil of appearance),我们观察到的,并不是“物自体”,而不过是现象,甚至是现象的影响。而且,实在向我们显示的往往不是它们的本体,而是它们之间的关系。隐喻把握的正是这种关系而不是所指物,即实体。既然没有笔直的阳关大道可走,人们便不得不借助于隐喻这根拐杖,沿着羊肠小道,迂回曲折地向自己理想和憧憬的目的地踽踽独行。此时,科学家像文化研究者一样,潜入的是流动的隐喻的海洋,而不是充满绝对真理的现实世界。从社会政治的角度来看,政治家们借用隐喻来构建他们的话语权,来实现他们的政治抱负。在这个意义上,政治家和普通百姓并不处于权力对等的位置上,前者是“掌权者”,后者是“无权者”。特别是当隐喻创造者与接受者在某一目标领域上分别处于“知”与“无知”的状态时,后者对前者的接受常常是无条件的。隐喻的完成要受到意识形态和社会权力的引导和制约,反过来,它也可以为意识形态和社会权力服务。
最后,本文论述了对认知隐喻观的不同看法。很多学者认为,隐喻性话语和隐喻性思维使人类的活动显得神圣、富有诗性和说服力,使生存充满了省悟,人藉此得以体验生命的自由、美和超验的力量。隐喻以赋予意义、创建意义的行为,建立和开启了一个新的世界,使自然、社会和各种存在显示出新的可能与意义。
隐喻给超理性的、无法经验的事物留下了驱入的缝隙,不可言说之物依靠隐喻性语言的坐标显示出它存在的方位。语言被隐喻地言说,使人从对实证经验的指证中解脱出来,进入一个全然不同的“体验”领域,从而使思维不滞留于个别、具体的物、境,而进入“共相的”、普遍的意义领域,永恒的存在在有限的语言形式的无限性中显示出来,被逻辑与理性割裂开的世界重新弥合成一个宁静圆满的整体,人的存在被重新纳入宇宙和谐的韵律中。
但也有学者认为,尽管认知隐喻观已得到普遍的接受,Lakoff等人在研究隐喻概念或概念隐喻时却有将隐喻孤立化和泛化的倾向。尽管认知语言学对概念隐喻进行了界定和分析,但却没有在词或短语层面上对是什么构成了语言中的隐喻给出明确的尺度,也没有清楚地说明如何辨别一个概念隐喻的存在。一些心理学家和语言学家们认为,目前的隐喻理论,尤其是概念隐喻理论,是很难证伪的。他们甚至认为,很多被语言学家认为是隐喻的传统表达法实际上根本不是隐喻性的。
语言具有塑造我们意识的威力。从认知语言学和体验哲学的角度来看,人本性或人类中心性为语言的内在属性,本身无所谓有害或有益。然而它却蕴涵了排他的可能,从而导致语言中仅着眼人类自身的利益。这是认知语言学和体验哲学,或者说概念隐喻理论潜在的一个不足。为了人类的健康发展,我们必须注意语言对我们行为的潜移默化的影响,惟有这样,语言使用者才可能关注人与自然的和谐,消减人类中心主义的思维范式所带来的负面影响,使人类社会可持续地发展。总而言之,本文从多纬度对隐喻进行了论证,旨在说明隐喻现象体现了人与自然世界的原始关系,人以体认或体验的方式来直接认识世界,他的机体感官对他具有启示的意义。身体是语言,人以符号的方式,即是以体验的方式把世界据为己有,把自己变成世界。人类的思维和语言从根本上说是隐喻性的。人类在隐喻中诞生,在隐喻中成长,在隐喻中走向未来。诚如保罗·利科所说:“活生生的存在意味着活生生的表达。隐喻作为人类固有的自身表达方式,是与生命同源同位的有机体。”
本研究的创新点是:目前我国对隐喻的研究大部分都停留在词汇、句法或语篇层面上。从宏观层面上,像从文化、哲学、应用等纬度来进行研究的相对要少得多。本研究恰恰把这三方面结合在一起,对隐喻进行多纬度、深层次的思考。
本研究的意义在于,它会使人们跳出以往的头脑里所固有的隐喻范式,把隐喻当作认识自己和世界的有利工具。在当前人类面临生存挑战的语境中,语言自身并不能解决人类面对的问题,但语言数千年的积淀却具有永久的启示价值。语言的隐喻性特质提供了一个引领人们回身反顾的参照,“我们能够向前或向后踏上思想之路,甚至返回的道路才引导我们向前。”(海德格尔1997:83)
Early in the 20th century, an important shift in linguistic scholarship occurred, from research within language itself to paying greater attention to factors outside of language, factors nevertheless crucial to the wider understanding of this uniquely human activity. In other words, we study language so that we can understand the relations between language and human beings, and the relations between language and the external world.
Metaphor as a common phenomenon in language has drawn a great deal of attention from scholars from ancient times until the present day. As language gradually developed, metaphor served as a kind of naming at first, largely inspired by observations of and interactions with nature. It not only gave an object a name, but also served to project properties from within the human psyche upon the object. Thus, metaphor can be said to subsist within the spirit of the human being, firmly sustaining a unique, continuing and valid bond between human beings and nature. Furthermore, it is pre-linguistic, and functions at deeper levels than language within the archaeology of the human mind, emerging from the emotional realm.
The phenomena of logic, of labeling, classification, provisional thought and provisional detachment from emotion, all exclusively human processes at a higher order of abstraction, could only emerge and develop as language itself began to come into its own. I could carry the argument further to include issues of evolutionary development, of left brain (logical function) vs. right brain (emotional center), mediated through the corpus callosum, popular concepts with wide acceptance, but I will leave that continuing research to the brain physiologists. Suffice it to say that metaphor has remained a powerful, live underlying process of language which can never be supplanted by exclusively linguistic phenomena such as logical categories, provisional detachment, and so on.
Metaphor is thus both a characteristic of language and a representation of fundamental attributes of the human psyche. Moreover, it is a creative process in which human beings semiologize the world.
Using the framework of cognitive linguistic theories, this paper analyzes and discusses the relationships between language and man and the external world from the perspective of metaphor. Through analysis of numerous detailed and accurate examples/evidences I collected myself, this paper will show that metaphor is not only the entity in which language exists but also the thinking mode of human beings. It is all the more a cognitive mechanism on which everyday life depends.
After reviewing the history of research on metaphor both in Western contexts and in the Orient, and explicating the definitions of metaphor, categories of metaphor, and the mechanisms derived from the framework of cognitive linguistic theories, this paper will focus on three dimensions: The cultural dimension of metaphor In this section I analyze metaphorical words or phrases in Chinese, and inform the reader of the great changes that have occurred in China recently. Humanity is more and more respected and society is more and more open to the outside world. There is also an analysis of metaphorical usage in English, which suggests that differing conceptual metaphors determine the different outlooks of people and different world views. Although metaphorical cognition of embodiment is a common way of cognition, and all nations share some culture in common, and there are same or similar metaphorical concepts in different national languages, due to different locations, cultural backgrounds, religions and so on and so forth.
The characteristics of culture reflected by the use of conceptual metaphors in English are quite different from those projected by the use of conceptual metaphors in Chinese. The reason for this is that a language is a kind of outlook; that at a language itself is a cultural power and cultural mode. Based on recognizing their body first, the English and Chinese nations try to know about the world through certain variations within their metaphorical mechanisms; thus they form different concepts or outlooks. The philosophical dimension of metaphor Traditional and classical logic is a rigid dual value- logic/dialectic based on Aristotelian syllogisms– major premises, minor premises, and conclusions. In this framework, a proposition or a judgment can be shown to be either right or wrong, either true or false, valid or invalid. So in the historical tradition of scientific philosophy, metaphor has been regarded as,ā-logical (non-logical) or anti-logical. In this section I create three models: a model of maternal bodily recognition of nature, a model of wresting resources/nourishment from Nature Mum, and the model of protecting Nature Mum.
With these models I try to illustrate that metaphorical thinking is an inborn characteristic, functioning as a kind of proto-language, which can transcend such operant concepts, on more abstract level, as trueness and falseness, history, here and there, the physical world, real world and imaginary world. On the surface, metaphor would appear to be against logic, but in fact, it transcends logic. In other words, metaphor surpasses the traditional dual logic by subsuming greater meaning within a larger and more comprehensive whole. So called logic or trueness is no more than the metaphorical product of the thinking subject. The applicational dimension of metaphor From the perspective of natural science, the exquisiteness of nature goes much beyond, is much above that of the senses and comprehension of human beings. Thus, the understanding of nature by human beings is just like a blind person feeling the elephant. Reality doesn’t present itself to us directly as there is a veil of appearance between objective reality and cognitive subject. What we observe is not the object in its own pure essence, the noumenon, which is, by definition, unknowable, but its manifestation– its phenomenon, appearance, or even the influence of its phenomenon or appearance, reflecting the relations between our subjective selves and the noumenal reality‘out there.’
What metaphor grasps is just those relations, but not the wider substantiality, the noumenon, by Kant’s definition, unknowable in its true essence. Under such circumstances, metaphorical thinking is one of the best ways for scientists to explore nature, the world and the unknown. This part tries to show that scientists made scientific terms with metaphor and they have solved many difficult scientific problems through metaphorical means. In other words, scientists have to get into a metaphorical world before they can get close to reality.
It is also true with politics. Statesmen build their persuasive powers of speech and further their political aspirations through the use of metaphor, for in politics metaphor has the function of naming and persuading. Here the Iraq war is quoted to show that how the American government built political metaphors and how those metaphors had an influence on the general populace.
Toward the end I expound the differing views on cognitive metaphors. Although most linguistic scholars and researchers believe that metaphor makes it possible for people to understand things which are beyond the normal reaches of traditional/logical reason, or can’t be experienced so that the world or reality separated by reason and logic can be integrated into a harmonious one.
Metaphor can produce, construct, or modify meanings. It can also open up a new world. Metaphorical languages and metaphorical thinking make the activity of human beings holy, poetic and eloquent. However, there are many criticisms of conceptual metaphorical theory from scholars in various disciplines within the cognitive sciences. Some scholars complain that many of the linguistic analyses presented in favor of conceptual metaphor theory are based on selected isolated examples often cited by the research analyst to bolster his larger argument. Raymond Gibbs, a pioneer in psycholinguistics, has argued that the present conceptual metaphorical theory is, in terms of cognitive grammar, unfalsifiable, if the only data in its favor is the systematic grouping of metaphors linked by a common theme. They even think that many conventional expressions viewed as metaphorical by cognitive linguists are not metaphorical at all, and are treated by ordinary speakers as literal speech. In this way, cognitive linguists fail to draw a distinction between literal and metaphorical meaning.
本文以认知语言学的理论为框架,以隐喻研究为切入点,探讨、分析语言与人及外部世界的关系。全文运用了定性分析的研究方法,以大量、翔实的例证说明了隐喻不仅是语言存在的实体,而且是人类思维的模式,更是人类赖以生存的认知机制。
本文首先回顾了中西方对隐喻研究的历史。西方的隐喻研究历史悠久,并且体系完整。亚里士多德的隐喻观在西方的影响深刻并且全面,在以后各派隐喻理论和观点中都可以看到亚氏理论的影子。尽管中国古人对隐喻研究所使用的术语与西方人所使用的术语不尽相同,但中国对隐喻现象关注的历史可以说与西方一样悠久,诸如“比”、“兴”等现象在诗学、修辞学、文论、演说术等不同领域皆得到探讨和研究。但总的来说,中国对隐喻的研究基本上是停留在修辞层面上,没有形成一个相对独立的研究领域,研究是实用性的和印象式的,缺少理论性的分析。
接着,本文从认知语言学的角度,对隐喻的界定、分类和工作机制进行了论述。实际上,不管是哪种隐喻理论,如亚里士多德(Aristotle 1954)提出的“指称说”(Reference View)和“比较说”(Comparison Theory );昆提良(Quintillion)提出的“替代说”(Substitution View);科特(Kitty, E F. 1989)提出的“转移说”(Transfer View );马修( Matthew, R. J. 1980)等人所持的“变异说”(Anomaly View);肯尼迪( Kennedy, J. M. 1990 )提出的“分类说”(Classification View);理查兹(I. A. Richards)和布莱克(Black, M. 1962)提出的“互动说”(Interaction View)等,他们都从不同的侧面对隐喻进行了探讨,这些理论的实质都是大同小异的——用事物B来表现、说明事物A,即用B的特征来凸显A的本质/本质属性。而莱考夫和约翰逊( Layoff, G. & M. Johnson:1980)提出的“认知隐喻观”(Cognition View)与以上各学说的最大不同之处在于,它认为隐喻不仅仅是一种语言现象,更是一种认知规律,它是人类抽象思维的主要途径之一,是人类使世界秩序化的方式,也是人自身存在的方式。认知隐喻观将隐喻研究进一步提升到了生命本体论的高度。
在认知隐喻观框架中,本文论证了隐喻性语言和隐喻性思维渗透到语言的各个层面。有的学者甚至认为,隐喻几乎可以解释一切语言现象。隐喻使语言世界成为一个有活力的有机生命体,使语言的肌体里有一个整体性的内核,构成语言内所有要素的约束力量,并且贯穿于语言进化的始终。
在论述完上述观点后,本文用了主要的笔墨,从宏观层面,论述了1)隐喻的文化纬度。首先通过研究汉语中隐喻词汇内涵的变化,使人们清楚地看到,中国社会发生了翻天覆地的改变:人性越来越得到尊重,社会越来越开放、进步。其次,通过分析中英特定的文化所形成的特定的概念隐喻体系,论证了不同的概念隐喻决定了人们不同的世界观,决定了人们眼中不同的现实世界。虽然人体隐喻化认知是人类普遍存在的一种认知方式,人类各民族存在着共识文化,不同的民族语言里会有相同的隐喻概念,但是,由于英汉两个民族所处的地理位置、文化背景、宗教信仰等的不同,概念隐喻所折射出的文化特点是不同的,因为语言就是一种世界观,语言本身就是一种文化力量和文化模式。英汉两个民族在认识自身的基础上,通过隐喻机制,经过英汉这两种不同语言的过虑,去认识世界时,便对世界做出了不完全相同的切割和处理。2)隐喻的哲学纬度。传统的经典逻辑是一种严格的二值逻辑:一个命题或判断要么为真,要么为假,除此之外任何其他的逻辑可能性都是不存在的,或者说是错误的。所以,在科学哲学的历史传统中,隐喻一直被认为是一种非逻辑或反逻辑的思维与语言现象。但是, 20世纪后半叶以来,当代认知科学的新发展逐渐揭示出一种事实:在认知主体的实际思维运作过程中,隐喻与逻辑绝非两种毫无关联的离散体;相反,两者在意义的暗示与牵连、概念的生成与转换、语言的理解与交流中互为表里,缺一不可,在认识论和方法论的双重意义上交叉互动,共同发挥其应有的作用。认知隐喻观认为,隐喻思维能力是人与生俱来的,或者说是我们赖以生存的时空所赋予给我们的本质属性,是人类以自身度万物所获得的能超越真假、超越历史、超越此在与彼在、超越物理世界、现实世界、和想象世界的非凡能力。隐喻性思维表面上是反逻辑,实际上是超逻辑思维。换句话说,隐喻是对传统二值逻辑樊篱的超越,它使事物的类属关系或分类空间不再是僵化的、固定不变的,而是在一定条件下不断调适的、不断互动的。隐喻本质地蕴涵着深层次的认知内容,并生动地展现出相应的逻辑特征。隐喻性语言或隐喻性思维昭示出,所谓的“逻辑”、“真实”不过是思维主体的隐喻产物。3)隐喻的应用纬度。隐喻不仅属于语言,也不单单属于思维,还属于人类的一些活动和行为。从自然科学的角度来看,自然的精微较之感官和理解力的精微远远高出若干倍,因此,人们所醉心的一切——像煞有介事的沉思、揣想和诠释,等等,实如盲人暗摸,离题甚远。更何况,“自在之物”处于现象的彼岸,实在并不是径直地呈现给我们的,在客观实在与认知主体之间隔着一道“外观之幕”(veil of appearance),我们观察到的,并不是“物自体”,而不过是现象,甚至是现象的影响。而且,实在向我们显示的往往不是它们的本体,而是它们之间的关系。隐喻把握的正是这种关系而不是所指物,即实体。既然没有笔直的阳关大道可走,人们便不得不借助于隐喻这根拐杖,沿着羊肠小道,迂回曲折地向自己理想和憧憬的目的地踽踽独行。此时,科学家像文化研究者一样,潜入的是流动的隐喻的海洋,而不是充满绝对真理的现实世界。从社会政治的角度来看,政治家们借用隐喻来构建他们的话语权,来实现他们的政治抱负。在这个意义上,政治家和普通百姓并不处于权力对等的位置上,前者是“掌权者”,后者是“无权者”。特别是当隐喻创造者与接受者在某一目标领域上分别处于“知”与“无知”的状态时,后者对前者的接受常常是无条件的。隐喻的完成要受到意识形态和社会权力的引导和制约,反过来,它也可以为意识形态和社会权力服务。
最后,本文论述了对认知隐喻观的不同看法。很多学者认为,隐喻性话语和隐喻性思维使人类的活动显得神圣、富有诗性和说服力,使生存充满了省悟,人藉此得以体验生命的自由、美和超验的力量。隐喻以赋予意义、创建意义的行为,建立和开启了一个新的世界,使自然、社会和各种存在显示出新的可能与意义。
隐喻给超理性的、无法经验的事物留下了驱入的缝隙,不可言说之物依靠隐喻性语言的坐标显示出它存在的方位。语言被隐喻地言说,使人从对实证经验的指证中解脱出来,进入一个全然不同的“体验”领域,从而使思维不滞留于个别、具体的物、境,而进入“共相的”、普遍的意义领域,永恒的存在在有限的语言形式的无限性中显示出来,被逻辑与理性割裂开的世界重新弥合成一个宁静圆满的整体,人的存在被重新纳入宇宙和谐的韵律中。
但也有学者认为,尽管认知隐喻观已得到普遍的接受,Lakoff等人在研究隐喻概念或概念隐喻时却有将隐喻孤立化和泛化的倾向。尽管认知语言学对概念隐喻进行了界定和分析,但却没有在词或短语层面上对是什么构成了语言中的隐喻给出明确的尺度,也没有清楚地说明如何辨别一个概念隐喻的存在。一些心理学家和语言学家们认为,目前的隐喻理论,尤其是概念隐喻理论,是很难证伪的。他们甚至认为,很多被语言学家认为是隐喻的传统表达法实际上根本不是隐喻性的。
语言具有塑造我们意识的威力。从认知语言学和体验哲学的角度来看,人本性或人类中心性为语言的内在属性,本身无所谓有害或有益。然而它却蕴涵了排他的可能,从而导致语言中仅着眼人类自身的利益。这是认知语言学和体验哲学,或者说概念隐喻理论潜在的一个不足。为了人类的健康发展,我们必须注意语言对我们行为的潜移默化的影响,惟有这样,语言使用者才可能关注人与自然的和谐,消减人类中心主义的思维范式所带来的负面影响,使人类社会可持续地发展。总而言之,本文从多纬度对隐喻进行了论证,旨在说明隐喻现象体现了人与自然世界的原始关系,人以体认或体验的方式来直接认识世界,他的机体感官对他具有启示的意义。身体是语言,人以符号的方式,即是以体验的方式把世界据为己有,把自己变成世界。人类的思维和语言从根本上说是隐喻性的。人类在隐喻中诞生,在隐喻中成长,在隐喻中走向未来。诚如保罗·利科所说:“活生生的存在意味着活生生的表达。隐喻作为人类固有的自身表达方式,是与生命同源同位的有机体。”
本研究的创新点是:目前我国对隐喻的研究大部分都停留在词汇、句法或语篇层面上。从宏观层面上,像从文化、哲学、应用等纬度来进行研究的相对要少得多。本研究恰恰把这三方面结合在一起,对隐喻进行多纬度、深层次的思考。
本研究的意义在于,它会使人们跳出以往的头脑里所固有的隐喻范式,把隐喻当作认识自己和世界的有利工具。在当前人类面临生存挑战的语境中,语言自身并不能解决人类面对的问题,但语言数千年的积淀却具有永久的启示价值。语言的隐喻性特质提供了一个引领人们回身反顾的参照,“我们能够向前或向后踏上思想之路,甚至返回的道路才引导我们向前。”(海德格尔1997:83)
Early in the 20th century, an important shift in linguistic scholarship occurred, from research within language itself to paying greater attention to factors outside of language, factors nevertheless crucial to the wider understanding of this uniquely human activity. In other words, we study language so that we can understand the relations between language and human beings, and the relations between language and the external world.
Metaphor as a common phenomenon in language has drawn a great deal of attention from scholars from ancient times until the present day. As language gradually developed, metaphor served as a kind of naming at first, largely inspired by observations of and interactions with nature. It not only gave an object a name, but also served to project properties from within the human psyche upon the object. Thus, metaphor can be said to subsist within the spirit of the human being, firmly sustaining a unique, continuing and valid bond between human beings and nature. Furthermore, it is pre-linguistic, and functions at deeper levels than language within the archaeology of the human mind, emerging from the emotional realm.
The phenomena of logic, of labeling, classification, provisional thought and provisional detachment from emotion, all exclusively human processes at a higher order of abstraction, could only emerge and develop as language itself began to come into its own. I could carry the argument further to include issues of evolutionary development, of left brain (logical function) vs. right brain (emotional center), mediated through the corpus callosum, popular concepts with wide acceptance, but I will leave that continuing research to the brain physiologists. Suffice it to say that metaphor has remained a powerful, live underlying process of language which can never be supplanted by exclusively linguistic phenomena such as logical categories, provisional detachment, and so on.
Metaphor is thus both a characteristic of language and a representation of fundamental attributes of the human psyche. Moreover, it is a creative process in which human beings semiologize the world.
Using the framework of cognitive linguistic theories, this paper analyzes and discusses the relationships between language and man and the external world from the perspective of metaphor. Through analysis of numerous detailed and accurate examples/evidences I collected myself, this paper will show that metaphor is not only the entity in which language exists but also the thinking mode of human beings. It is all the more a cognitive mechanism on which everyday life depends.
After reviewing the history of research on metaphor both in Western contexts and in the Orient, and explicating the definitions of metaphor, categories of metaphor, and the mechanisms derived from the framework of cognitive linguistic theories, this paper will focus on three dimensions: The cultural dimension of metaphor In this section I analyze metaphorical words or phrases in Chinese, and inform the reader of the great changes that have occurred in China recently. Humanity is more and more respected and society is more and more open to the outside world. There is also an analysis of metaphorical usage in English, which suggests that differing conceptual metaphors determine the different outlooks of people and different world views. Although metaphorical cognition of embodiment is a common way of cognition, and all nations share some culture in common, and there are same or similar metaphorical concepts in different national languages, due to different locations, cultural backgrounds, religions and so on and so forth.
The characteristics of culture reflected by the use of conceptual metaphors in English are quite different from those projected by the use of conceptual metaphors in Chinese. The reason for this is that a language is a kind of outlook; that at a language itself is a cultural power and cultural mode. Based on recognizing their body first, the English and Chinese nations try to know about the world through certain variations within their metaphorical mechanisms; thus they form different concepts or outlooks. The philosophical dimension of metaphor Traditional and classical logic is a rigid dual value- logic/dialectic based on Aristotelian syllogisms– major premises, minor premises, and conclusions. In this framework, a proposition or a judgment can be shown to be either right or wrong, either true or false, valid or invalid. So in the historical tradition of scientific philosophy, metaphor has been regarded as,ā-logical (non-logical) or anti-logical. In this section I create three models: a model of maternal bodily recognition of nature, a model of wresting resources/nourishment from Nature Mum, and the model of protecting Nature Mum.
With these models I try to illustrate that metaphorical thinking is an inborn characteristic, functioning as a kind of proto-language, which can transcend such operant concepts, on more abstract level, as trueness and falseness, history, here and there, the physical world, real world and imaginary world. On the surface, metaphor would appear to be against logic, but in fact, it transcends logic. In other words, metaphor surpasses the traditional dual logic by subsuming greater meaning within a larger and more comprehensive whole. So called logic or trueness is no more than the metaphorical product of the thinking subject. The applicational dimension of metaphor From the perspective of natural science, the exquisiteness of nature goes much beyond, is much above that of the senses and comprehension of human beings. Thus, the understanding of nature by human beings is just like a blind person feeling the elephant. Reality doesn’t present itself to us directly as there is a veil of appearance between objective reality and cognitive subject. What we observe is not the object in its own pure essence, the noumenon, which is, by definition, unknowable, but its manifestation– its phenomenon, appearance, or even the influence of its phenomenon or appearance, reflecting the relations between our subjective selves and the noumenal reality‘out there.’
What metaphor grasps is just those relations, but not the wider substantiality, the noumenon, by Kant’s definition, unknowable in its true essence. Under such circumstances, metaphorical thinking is one of the best ways for scientists to explore nature, the world and the unknown. This part tries to show that scientists made scientific terms with metaphor and they have solved many difficult scientific problems through metaphorical means. In other words, scientists have to get into a metaphorical world before they can get close to reality.
It is also true with politics. Statesmen build their persuasive powers of speech and further their political aspirations through the use of metaphor, for in politics metaphor has the function of naming and persuading. Here the Iraq war is quoted to show that how the American government built political metaphors and how those metaphors had an influence on the general populace.
Toward the end I expound the differing views on cognitive metaphors. Although most linguistic scholars and researchers believe that metaphor makes it possible for people to understand things which are beyond the normal reaches of traditional/logical reason, or can’t be experienced so that the world or reality separated by reason and logic can be integrated into a harmonious one.
Metaphor can produce, construct, or modify meanings. It can also open up a new world. Metaphorical languages and metaphorical thinking make the activity of human beings holy, poetic and eloquent. However, there are many criticisms of conceptual metaphorical theory from scholars in various disciplines within the cognitive sciences. Some scholars complain that many of the linguistic analyses presented in favor of conceptual metaphor theory are based on selected isolated examples often cited by the research analyst to bolster his larger argument. Raymond Gibbs, a pioneer in psycholinguistics, has argued that the present conceptual metaphorical theory is, in terms of cognitive grammar, unfalsifiable, if the only data in its favor is the systematic grouping of metaphors linked by a common theme. They even think that many conventional expressions viewed as metaphorical by cognitive linguists are not metaphorical at all, and are treated by ordinary speakers as literal speech. In this way, cognitive linguists fail to draw a distinction between literal and metaphorical meaning.
引文
Abrams,M.H. 1988. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wintson, Inc. 65.
Alex Preminger. 1986. The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 136.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetica. New York:The Morden Lbrary.
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and Species.Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press, 209.
Black, M. 1962. Metaphor. In M. Black (ed.), Models and Metaphor. New York:Cornell University Press.
Cassirer. Ernst. 1962. An Essay on Man. New Haven:Yale University Press, 226.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge Mass:MIT Press, 52.
Clark H.H. 1973. Space,Time,Semantics and the Child. In Moore T.E.(ed.).Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York:Academic Press.
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M. 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New York:Longman Group UK Limited.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York:Basic Books, 174.
Fill, A. 1993. Okolinguistik.Eine Einfuehrung.Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag, 109. Geach, T. P. & Black, M. 1952. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford:Blackwell, 25.
Gee, Jamaes Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D. 1985. Cognitive Restrictions on the Structure of Semantic Change. In Fisiak(ed.). Historical Semantics. New York:Mouton Publishers, 135-151.
Gibbs. 2008. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Conceptual Metaphor Theory:A View from Cognitive Science.外国语,(2):7-10.
Haskell, E. R. 1987. Cognition and Symbolic Structure:The Psychology of Metaphoric Transformation. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 16.
Holman Hugh. 1960. A Handbook to Literature. New York:The Odyssey Press, 281.
Hornby A.S. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 229.
Jung, M. 2001. Ecological Criticism of Language.In Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P.(eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader:Language ,Ecology and Environment. London and New York:Continuum, 270.
Kennedy, J. M. 1990. Metaphor:Its Intellectual Basis. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, (5).
Kittay, E. F. 1987. Metaphor: its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure.Oxford:Clarendon, 9.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.Chicago:Chicago University Press, 267.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:Chicago University Press, 6-7.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York:Basic Books, 497.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 99-100.
Lamb, Sidney. 1998. Pathways of the Brain:The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept ,Image and Symbol. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 149-163. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2005:290.
Abrams, M. H. 1988. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wintson, Inc.
Matthew, R. J. 1980. Concerning a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor. In Ching et al (eds.). Linguistic Perspective on Literature. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maturana, U. 1996. Language and Mind. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 28.
Michael Lewis. 1994. The English Verb.England:Commercial Colour Press.
Millar, A. 1991. Reasons and Experience. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 177.
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird , P. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge:Belknap Press, 395.
Miller, G. A. 1993. Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors. (second edition) In Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 357-400.
Northrop Frye. 1985. The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper & Row Publishers,282.
Ortony Andrew. 1979. Metaphor and Thought. New York:Cambridge University Press, 73.
Osherson, D.N. 1995/1997. An Invitation to Cognitive Science.(vol.1) Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press.
Paul Ricoeur. 1975. La Metaphor Vive. Paris:Edition du Seuil, 61.
Radman, Zdravko. 1997. Metaphors: Figures of the Mind. Boston:Kluwer Academic Publisher, 50.
Rene Wellek. 1983. A History of Modern Criticism. London:Cambridge University Press, 187-188.
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur Paul. 1978. The Rule of Metaphor—Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul plc, 16.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. 1975. Family Resemblances:Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, (7):573-605.
Rosch, E. Mervis, C. B. Gray, W. Johnson, D. & Rudzka-Ostyn, P. 1976. Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, (8):382-438.
Rose, F. 1985. The Black Knight of AI. Science, (6):46-51.
Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 43.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press, (VolⅠ), 70.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Dunedin:OUP, 4.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. G. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Longman, 278.
Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H.J. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2.
Wardman, A. E. & Creed, J. L. 1963. The philosophy of Aristotle. London:The New English Library Ltd, 827.
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. 1963. Symbol-formation:An Organismic-development Approach to Language and the Expression of Thought. New York /London /Sidney:Wiley, 403.
http://blog.cnwest.com/?uid-58603-action-viewspace-itemid-31437
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_507efff40100882o.html
http://book.lonol.com/965/2008/01/21/212278.htm
http://flydragon.ccnt.com.cn/post.php?rid=3105)
http://news.sohu.com/43/44/news209534443.shtml
http://ngc0228.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/
http://www.google.cn/search?q=%E6%88%91%E4%BB
http://www.google.cn/search?q=%E6%88%91%E4%BB%A
http://www.guoxue.com/jibu/wenlun/wenxin/wxdl_036.htm
http://www.hecom.gov.cn/wtofadian/wen/wtolw/lw915.htm。
http://www.sophia.net.cn/gu/folder17/20071116/2516.Html
http://www.zaobao.com/special/forum/pages4/forum_lx061213b.html) (http://news2.eastmoney.com/071022,702214.html (http://www.google.cn/search?complete=1&hl=zh-CN&newwindow (http://www.guxiang.com/f/shici/022/5/403.htm) (http://www.gz-benet.com.cn/jiuye/HTML/jiuye_4330.html (http://www.vastman.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=9072)
http//us.f368.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowFolder?YY=76202&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox)
Arley Gray and Della Summers. 1992.郎文美语词典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
Bloomfield (袁家骅等译). 1997.语言论.北京:商务印书馆.
Hornby. 1997.牛津高阶英汉双解词典.北京:商务印书馆.
阿尔文·施密特. 2004.基督教对文明的影响.北京:北京大学出版社, 376.
安德鲁·罗斯. 2002.科学大战(夏侯炳等译),南昌:江西教育出版社,87.
安军,郭贵春. 2007.隐喻的逻辑特征.哲学研究,(2):100.
巴恩斯. 2001.科学知识与社会理论. (鲁旭东译),北京:东方出版社, 79.
柏拉图. 2004.柏拉图对话集.北京:商务印书馆,172.
曹丽英. 2004.论隐喻在诗歌中的运用.湖南工程学院学报,(1).
陈勇. 2005.浅论隐喻的文化认知价值.中国俄语教学,(2):2.
陈家旭. 2007.英汉隐喻认知对比研究.上海:学林出版社,13.
陈家旭. 2005.英汉语人体隐喻化认知对比.聊城大学学报(社会科学版),(1):91.
陈望道. 1932.修辞学发凡.上海:上海教育出版社,72-73.
陈原. 1983.社会语言学.上海:学林出版社,38-40.
戴俊霞. 2003.隐喻与人类中心论.外国语言文学,(2):8-9.
戴卫平,于红. 2007.现代语文,(12):48-49.
邓丽君,荣晶. 2004.批判语言学中的隐喻.云南师范大学学报,(3):62-63.
冯端. 1996.对物理学历史的透视.科学,(6).
冯广艺. 2002.汉语比喻研究史.长沙:湖北教育出版社.
高航,严辰松. 2007.“头”的语法化考察.外语研究,(2):8-9.
高文成. 2007.语言学精要与学习指南.北京:清华大学出版社.
耿占春. 1993.隐喻.北京:东方出版社,151.
桂诗春. 1993.应用语言学和认知科学.语言文字应用(3):19-26.
桂诗春. 2000.新编心理语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,79-81.
郭贵春,贺天平. 2005.科学隐喻:“超逻辑形式”的科学凝集——论科学隐喻的基本原则和表现形态,(7):93-94.
哈斯巴特尔. 2006.语言文化比较研究.北京:民族出版社,259-272.
海德格尔. 1997.通向语言之途. (彭富春译).北京:商务印书馆,83.
黑格尔. 1979.美学(第一卷,朱光潜译).北京:商务印书馆,31-32.
黑格尔. 1983.哲学史讲演录(第1卷).北京:商务印书馆,95.
黑格尔. 1979.美学(第二卷,朱光潜译).北京:商务印书馆,10.
黑龙江晨报2007年10月21日,A6.
洪堡特. 1988.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 45-46.
侯春杰. 2006.语法隐喻的篇章实现功能.西安外国语学院学报,(3):7.
胡壮麟. 1997.语言·认知·隐喻.现代外语, (4):51-52.
胡壮麟. 2004.认知隐喻学.北京:北京大学出版社会,48.
华劭. 2007.从新的角度看隐喻.俄语语言文学研究,(1).
华劭. 2003.语言经纬.北京:商务印书馆,410.
霍恩比(AS Hornby). 2002.牛津高阶英汉双解词典.北京:商务印书馆,959.
季国清. 1998.语言的本质在“遥远的目光”中澄明.外语学刊,(3).
简清国,林茂竹. 1997.英汉多功能词典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
卡西尔. 1988.语言与神话.北京:三联书店,83-105.
柯尔. 2003.物理与头脑相遇的地方(丘宏义译).长春:长春出版社,13-20.
蓝爱国. 2003.解构十七年.上海:华东师范大学出版社,1.
李涤非. 2004.从概念隐喻看文化相对主义. (李平、陈向、张志林、张华夏主编),科学·认
知·意识——哲学与认知科学国际研讨会文集.南昌:江西人民出版社.
李恒威,黄华新. 2006.第二代认知科学的认知观.哲学研究,(6).
李善廷. 2008.论隐喻的相似性.中国俄语教学,(1):21.
李锡胤. 2007.语言·词典·翻译论稿.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.
李幼蒸. 1993.理论符号学导论.北京:中国社会科学出版社,311.
列维—布留尔. 1981.原始思维.北京:商务印书馆,35.
刘金弟. 1908.文法会通.上海:上海中国图书公司.
刘金明. 2004.科学中的隐喻研究:功能与特征.山东外语教学,(6):48-49.
刘云红. 2005.认知隐喻理论再研究.外语与外语教学,(8).
刘正光. 2006.语言非范畴化.上海:上海外语教育出版社,12,200.
卢梭. 2003.忏悔录.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,9.
卢梭. 1998.论不平等.北京:商务印书馆,2.
卢植. 2006.认知与语言——认知语言学引论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,17.
吕俊华. 1987.艺术创作与变态心理.北京:三联书店,58-59.
吕叔湘. 2002.现代汉语词典,北京:商务印书馆,901.
吕有云. 1994.本体论思维方式与唯心主义先验论的产生.广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(2):9-10.
梅德明,高文成. 2006.以《老子》为语料的概念隐喻认知研究.外语学刊,(3).
苗兴伟,廖美珍. 2007.隐喻的语篇功能研究.外语学刊,(6):53-54.
欧内斯特·内格尔. 2002.科学的结构(徐向东译).上海:上海译文出版社,127-139.
培根. 1984.新工具(许宝译).北京:商务印书馆,9-10.
钱冠连. 2005.语言——人类最后的家园.北京:商务印书馆,70.
钱钟书. 1937.中国固有的文学批评的一个特点.文学杂志,(4).
秦建栋. 2005.英语一般时态的视点阐释.苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),(3):122.
沈家煊. 1999.不对称和标记论.南昌:江西教育出版社, 6.
束定芳.《水浒》108将的姓名的认知分析.第五届全国认知语言学研讨会论文摘要汇编。
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,58.
束金星. 2005.隐喻与政治——“9.11事件”后美国外交政策中的隐喻思维透视.西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版),(1):116-117.
孙吉贵,杨凤杰等. 2002.离散数学.北京:高等教育出版社,193-333.
孙厌舒. 2004.论隐喻在政治语篇中的功用.聊城大学学报(社会科学版),(3):111-112.
谭学纯,朱玲. 2001.广义修辞学.合肥:安徽教育出版社.
宛志文. 2002.古今汉语常用字字典.武汉:湖北人民出版社,869.
王瀚东. 2002.哲学意义上的认知语言学隐喻理论.武汉大学学报(人文科学版),(6):678-679.
王松鹤. 2006c.隐喻研究的划时代标志——莱考夫和约翰逊.外语学刊, (3).
王松鹤. 2006b.语言赖以生存的隐喻——语义变化中隐喻的作用.黑龙江社会科学,(3).
王松鹤. 2006a.自然语言语义变化中隐喻研究的几个重要历史阶段.佳木斯大学社会科学学报,(3).
王松鹤. 2005.语言隐喻性的自然科学维度.外语学刊,(4).
王松亭. 1999.隐喻的机制和社会文化模式.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,74-75.
王文斌. 2003.论隐喻中的始源之源.外语研究,(4).
王一川. 1994.语言乌托邦.昆明:云南人民出版社,84.
王寅. 2007.认知语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,470-474.
王寅. 2005.认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社.
王寅. 2003.语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,317-323.
王寅. 2005.语篇连贯的认知世界分析方法——体验哲学和认知语言学对语篇连贯性的解释.外语学刊,(4):18-25.
维柯. 1989.《新科学》序论.北京:商务印书馆,9.
文旭. 2007.语义、认知与识解.外语学刊,(6):35-39.
现代汉语词典. 2004.北京:商务印书馆,586.
萧启宏. 2004.中国汉子经.北京:新世界出版社,10.
谢苗诺夫(蔡俊生译). 1983.婚姻和家庭的起源.北京:中国社会科学出版社,234.
谢之君. 2007.隐喻认知功能探索.上海:复旦大学出版社,15-16.
新时代汉英大词典. 2000.北京:商务印书馆,1633.
熊妮. 2005.论隐喻在广告语篇中的劝说功能.通化师范学院学报,(5):124.
许国璋. 1983.关于索绪尔的两本书.国外语言学,(1):9-18.
亚里士多德. 1991.修辞学.北京:三联书店出版社,183.
严辰松. 1997.语言临摹性概说.国外语言学,(3):21-25.
杨金花,韩田鹿. 2007.论刘勰的比兴观.河北学刊,(1).
叶柏来. 2005.解文说字.广州:华南理工大学出版社,223.
张敏. 1998.认知语言学与汉语名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
张玮,张德禄. 2007.隐喻性特征与语篇连贯研究.中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版),(4):73-74.
张海会. 2007.认知视野下的方位性隐喻“上”、“下”及其文化隐涵.辽宁行政学院学报,(5):217.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命.北京:北京大学出版社,7.
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,39.
赵永峰. 2007.体验哲学审视下的时间属性初探.外语学刊,(2):74.
郑伟. 2007.笛卡儿的二元论及其理论价值.中共济南市委党校学报,(2):14-17.
钟丽茜. 2002.坐看云起——重建语言的隐喻世界.江西社会科学,(11):75-77.
周榕. 2001.隐喻认知基础的心理现实性.外语教学与研究,(2):88-93.
朱长河. 2008.认知语言学与生态语言学的结合.四川外语学院学报,(2):20-22.
朱光潜. 1984.诗论.北京:三联出版社,33-38.
朱自清. 1956.诗言志辨.北京:古籍出版社,83.
祝吉芳,俞品. 2003.从隐喻在欧洲政治中的认知妙用看英语教学效率的提高.山东外语教学, (6):26-27.
Alex Preminger. 1986. The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 136.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetica. New York:The Morden Lbrary.
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and Species.Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press, 209.
Black, M. 1962. Metaphor. In M. Black (ed.), Models and Metaphor. New York:Cornell University Press.
Cassirer. Ernst. 1962. An Essay on Man. New Haven:Yale University Press, 226.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge Mass:MIT Press, 52.
Clark H.H. 1973. Space,Time,Semantics and the Child. In Moore T.E.(ed.).Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York:Academic Press.
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M. 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New York:Longman Group UK Limited.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York:Basic Books, 174.
Fill, A. 1993. Okolinguistik.Eine Einfuehrung.Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag, 109. Geach, T. P. & Black, M. 1952. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford:Blackwell, 25.
Gee, Jamaes Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D. 1985. Cognitive Restrictions on the Structure of Semantic Change. In Fisiak(ed.). Historical Semantics. New York:Mouton Publishers, 135-151.
Gibbs. 2008. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Conceptual Metaphor Theory:A View from Cognitive Science.外国语,(2):7-10.
Haskell, E. R. 1987. Cognition and Symbolic Structure:The Psychology of Metaphoric Transformation. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 16.
Holman Hugh. 1960. A Handbook to Literature. New York:The Odyssey Press, 281.
Hornby A.S. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 229.
Jung, M. 2001. Ecological Criticism of Language.In Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P.(eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader:Language ,Ecology and Environment. London and New York:Continuum, 270.
Kennedy, J. M. 1990. Metaphor:Its Intellectual Basis. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, (5).
Kittay, E. F. 1987. Metaphor: its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure.Oxford:Clarendon, 9.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.Chicago:Chicago University Press, 267.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:Chicago University Press, 6-7.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York:Basic Books, 497.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 99-100.
Lamb, Sidney. 1998. Pathways of the Brain:The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept ,Image and Symbol. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 149-163. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2005:290.
Abrams, M. H. 1988. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wintson, Inc.
Matthew, R. J. 1980. Concerning a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor. In Ching et al (eds.). Linguistic Perspective on Literature. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maturana, U. 1996. Language and Mind. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 28.
Michael Lewis. 1994. The English Verb.England:Commercial Colour Press.
Millar, A. 1991. Reasons and Experience. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 177.
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird , P. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge:Belknap Press, 395.
Miller, G. A. 1993. Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors. (second edition) In Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 357-400.
Northrop Frye. 1985. The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper & Row Publishers,282.
Ortony Andrew. 1979. Metaphor and Thought. New York:Cambridge University Press, 73.
Osherson, D.N. 1995/1997. An Invitation to Cognitive Science.(vol.1) Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press.
Paul Ricoeur. 1975. La Metaphor Vive. Paris:Edition du Seuil, 61.
Radman, Zdravko. 1997. Metaphors: Figures of the Mind. Boston:Kluwer Academic Publisher, 50.
Rene Wellek. 1983. A History of Modern Criticism. London:Cambridge University Press, 187-188.
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur Paul. 1978. The Rule of Metaphor—Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul plc, 16.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. 1975. Family Resemblances:Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, (7):573-605.
Rosch, E. Mervis, C. B. Gray, W. Johnson, D. & Rudzka-Ostyn, P. 1976. Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, (8):382-438.
Rose, F. 1985. The Black Knight of AI. Science, (6):46-51.
Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 43.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press, (VolⅠ), 70.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Dunedin:OUP, 4.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. G. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Longman, 278.
Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H.J. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2.
Wardman, A. E. & Creed, J. L. 1963. The philosophy of Aristotle. London:The New English Library Ltd, 827.
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. 1963. Symbol-formation:An Organismic-development Approach to Language and the Expression of Thought. New York /London /Sidney:Wiley, 403.
http://blog.cnwest.com/?uid-58603-action-viewspace-itemid-31437
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_507efff40100882o.html
http://book.lonol.com/965/2008/01/21/212278.htm
http://flydragon.ccnt.com.cn/post.php?rid=3105)
http://news.sohu.com/43/44/news209534443.shtml
http://ngc0228.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/
http://www.google.cn/search?q=%E6%88%91%E4%BB
http://www.google.cn/search?q=%E6%88%91%E4%BB%A
http://www.guoxue.com/jibu/wenlun/wenxin/wxdl_036.htm
http://www.hecom.gov.cn/wtofadian/wen/wtolw/lw915.htm。
http://www.sophia.net.cn/gu/folder17/20071116/2516.Html
http://www.zaobao.com/special/forum/pages4/forum_lx061213b.html) (http://news2.eastmoney.com/071022,702214.html (http://www.google.cn/search?complete=1&hl=zh-CN&newwindow (http://www.guxiang.com/f/shici/022/5/403.htm) (http://www.gz-benet.com.cn/jiuye/HTML/jiuye_4330.html (http://www.vastman.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=9072)
http//us.f368.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowFolder?YY=76202&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox)
Arley Gray and Della Summers. 1992.郎文美语词典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
Bloomfield (袁家骅等译). 1997.语言论.北京:商务印书馆.
Hornby. 1997.牛津高阶英汉双解词典.北京:商务印书馆.
阿尔文·施密特. 2004.基督教对文明的影响.北京:北京大学出版社, 376.
安德鲁·罗斯. 2002.科学大战(夏侯炳等译),南昌:江西教育出版社,87.
安军,郭贵春. 2007.隐喻的逻辑特征.哲学研究,(2):100.
巴恩斯. 2001.科学知识与社会理论. (鲁旭东译),北京:东方出版社, 79.
柏拉图. 2004.柏拉图对话集.北京:商务印书馆,172.
曹丽英. 2004.论隐喻在诗歌中的运用.湖南工程学院学报,(1).
陈勇. 2005.浅论隐喻的文化认知价值.中国俄语教学,(2):2.
陈家旭. 2007.英汉隐喻认知对比研究.上海:学林出版社,13.
陈家旭. 2005.英汉语人体隐喻化认知对比.聊城大学学报(社会科学版),(1):91.
陈望道. 1932.修辞学发凡.上海:上海教育出版社,72-73.
陈原. 1983.社会语言学.上海:学林出版社,38-40.
戴俊霞. 2003.隐喻与人类中心论.外国语言文学,(2):8-9.
戴卫平,于红. 2007.现代语文,(12):48-49.
邓丽君,荣晶. 2004.批判语言学中的隐喻.云南师范大学学报,(3):62-63.
冯端. 1996.对物理学历史的透视.科学,(6).
冯广艺. 2002.汉语比喻研究史.长沙:湖北教育出版社.
高航,严辰松. 2007.“头”的语法化考察.外语研究,(2):8-9.
高文成. 2007.语言学精要与学习指南.北京:清华大学出版社.
耿占春. 1993.隐喻.北京:东方出版社,151.
桂诗春. 1993.应用语言学和认知科学.语言文字应用(3):19-26.
桂诗春. 2000.新编心理语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,79-81.
郭贵春,贺天平. 2005.科学隐喻:“超逻辑形式”的科学凝集——论科学隐喻的基本原则和表现形态,(7):93-94.
哈斯巴特尔. 2006.语言文化比较研究.北京:民族出版社,259-272.
海德格尔. 1997.通向语言之途. (彭富春译).北京:商务印书馆,83.
黑格尔. 1979.美学(第一卷,朱光潜译).北京:商务印书馆,31-32.
黑格尔. 1983.哲学史讲演录(第1卷).北京:商务印书馆,95.
黑格尔. 1979.美学(第二卷,朱光潜译).北京:商务印书馆,10.
黑龙江晨报2007年10月21日,A6.
洪堡特. 1988.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 45-46.
侯春杰. 2006.语法隐喻的篇章实现功能.西安外国语学院学报,(3):7.
胡壮麟. 1997.语言·认知·隐喻.现代外语, (4):51-52.
胡壮麟. 2004.认知隐喻学.北京:北京大学出版社会,48.
华劭. 2007.从新的角度看隐喻.俄语语言文学研究,(1).
华劭. 2003.语言经纬.北京:商务印书馆,410.
霍恩比(AS Hornby). 2002.牛津高阶英汉双解词典.北京:商务印书馆,959.
季国清. 1998.语言的本质在“遥远的目光”中澄明.外语学刊,(3).
简清国,林茂竹. 1997.英汉多功能词典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
卡西尔. 1988.语言与神话.北京:三联书店,83-105.
柯尔. 2003.物理与头脑相遇的地方(丘宏义译).长春:长春出版社,13-20.
蓝爱国. 2003.解构十七年.上海:华东师范大学出版社,1.
李涤非. 2004.从概念隐喻看文化相对主义. (李平、陈向、张志林、张华夏主编),科学·认
知·意识——哲学与认知科学国际研讨会文集.南昌:江西人民出版社.
李恒威,黄华新. 2006.第二代认知科学的认知观.哲学研究,(6).
李善廷. 2008.论隐喻的相似性.中国俄语教学,(1):21.
李锡胤. 2007.语言·词典·翻译论稿.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.
李幼蒸. 1993.理论符号学导论.北京:中国社会科学出版社,311.
列维—布留尔. 1981.原始思维.北京:商务印书馆,35.
刘金弟. 1908.文法会通.上海:上海中国图书公司.
刘金明. 2004.科学中的隐喻研究:功能与特征.山东外语教学,(6):48-49.
刘云红. 2005.认知隐喻理论再研究.外语与外语教学,(8).
刘正光. 2006.语言非范畴化.上海:上海外语教育出版社,12,200.
卢梭. 2003.忏悔录.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,9.
卢梭. 1998.论不平等.北京:商务印书馆,2.
卢植. 2006.认知与语言——认知语言学引论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,17.
吕俊华. 1987.艺术创作与变态心理.北京:三联书店,58-59.
吕叔湘. 2002.现代汉语词典,北京:商务印书馆,901.
吕有云. 1994.本体论思维方式与唯心主义先验论的产生.广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(2):9-10.
梅德明,高文成. 2006.以《老子》为语料的概念隐喻认知研究.外语学刊,(3).
苗兴伟,廖美珍. 2007.隐喻的语篇功能研究.外语学刊,(6):53-54.
欧内斯特·内格尔. 2002.科学的结构(徐向东译).上海:上海译文出版社,127-139.
培根. 1984.新工具(许宝译).北京:商务印书馆,9-10.
钱冠连. 2005.语言——人类最后的家园.北京:商务印书馆,70.
钱钟书. 1937.中国固有的文学批评的一个特点.文学杂志,(4).
秦建栋. 2005.英语一般时态的视点阐释.苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),(3):122.
沈家煊. 1999.不对称和标记论.南昌:江西教育出版社, 6.
束定芳.《水浒》108将的姓名的认知分析.第五届全国认知语言学研讨会论文摘要汇编。
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,58.
束金星. 2005.隐喻与政治——“9.11事件”后美国外交政策中的隐喻思维透视.西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版),(1):116-117.
孙吉贵,杨凤杰等. 2002.离散数学.北京:高等教育出版社,193-333.
孙厌舒. 2004.论隐喻在政治语篇中的功用.聊城大学学报(社会科学版),(3):111-112.
谭学纯,朱玲. 2001.广义修辞学.合肥:安徽教育出版社.
宛志文. 2002.古今汉语常用字字典.武汉:湖北人民出版社,869.
王瀚东. 2002.哲学意义上的认知语言学隐喻理论.武汉大学学报(人文科学版),(6):678-679.
王松鹤. 2006c.隐喻研究的划时代标志——莱考夫和约翰逊.外语学刊, (3).
王松鹤. 2006b.语言赖以生存的隐喻——语义变化中隐喻的作用.黑龙江社会科学,(3).
王松鹤. 2006a.自然语言语义变化中隐喻研究的几个重要历史阶段.佳木斯大学社会科学学报,(3).
王松鹤. 2005.语言隐喻性的自然科学维度.外语学刊,(4).
王松亭. 1999.隐喻的机制和社会文化模式.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,74-75.
王文斌. 2003.论隐喻中的始源之源.外语研究,(4).
王一川. 1994.语言乌托邦.昆明:云南人民出版社,84.
王寅. 2007.认知语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,470-474.
王寅. 2005.认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社.
王寅. 2003.语义理论与语言教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,317-323.
王寅. 2005.语篇连贯的认知世界分析方法——体验哲学和认知语言学对语篇连贯性的解释.外语学刊,(4):18-25.
维柯. 1989.《新科学》序论.北京:商务印书馆,9.
文旭. 2007.语义、认知与识解.外语学刊,(6):35-39.
现代汉语词典. 2004.北京:商务印书馆,586.
萧启宏. 2004.中国汉子经.北京:新世界出版社,10.
谢苗诺夫(蔡俊生译). 1983.婚姻和家庭的起源.北京:中国社会科学出版社,234.
谢之君. 2007.隐喻认知功能探索.上海:复旦大学出版社,15-16.
新时代汉英大词典. 2000.北京:商务印书馆,1633.
熊妮. 2005.论隐喻在广告语篇中的劝说功能.通化师范学院学报,(5):124.
许国璋. 1983.关于索绪尔的两本书.国外语言学,(1):9-18.
亚里士多德. 1991.修辞学.北京:三联书店出版社,183.
严辰松. 1997.语言临摹性概说.国外语言学,(3):21-25.
杨金花,韩田鹿. 2007.论刘勰的比兴观.河北学刊,(1).
叶柏来. 2005.解文说字.广州:华南理工大学出版社,223.
张敏. 1998.认知语言学与汉语名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
张玮,张德禄. 2007.隐喻性特征与语篇连贯研究.中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版),(4):73-74.
张海会. 2007.认知视野下的方位性隐喻“上”、“下”及其文化隐涵.辽宁行政学院学报,(5):217.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命.北京:北京大学出版社,7.
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社,39.
赵永峰. 2007.体验哲学审视下的时间属性初探.外语学刊,(2):74.
郑伟. 2007.笛卡儿的二元论及其理论价值.中共济南市委党校学报,(2):14-17.
钟丽茜. 2002.坐看云起——重建语言的隐喻世界.江西社会科学,(11):75-77.
周榕. 2001.隐喻认知基础的心理现实性.外语教学与研究,(2):88-93.
朱长河. 2008.认知语言学与生态语言学的结合.四川外语学院学报,(2):20-22.
朱光潜. 1984.诗论.北京:三联出版社,33-38.
朱自清. 1956.诗言志辨.北京:古籍出版社,83.
祝吉芳,俞品. 2003.从隐喻在欧洲政治中的认知妙用看英语教学效率的提高.山东外语教学, (6):26-27.