现代汉语缩略语的认知研究
|
摘要
省力原则,又称经济原则,是驱动和指导人类语言行为的一条基本法则。经济原则在语言中最主要的表现之一是缩略语的大量使用。
现代汉语缩略语的研究经历了从修辞学到词汇学的转变。即便在词汇学领域,相当长一段时间内学者们在其界定和分类上徘徊不前。后来虽然有学者从经济省力的角度对现代汉语缩略语的生成理据进行了研究,但他们主要从言者角度去讨论省力,而且基本上忽视了缩略语经济性所导致的理据性的磨蚀。另有一些学者对缩略语的构造理据进行了有益的探讨,提出了一些较为合理的构造原则,但构造汉语缩略语最为明显的取首原则却被忽视,并且遗憾的是,这些构造原则均是以描述为主,缺乏合理的解释。此外,一些学者还对现代汉语缩略语的语法功能进行了有价值的探讨,但他们只关注缩略语生成前后词性的转变,而完全忽视其意义上的变化,现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展更是少有学者探讨。尽管学者们承认现代汉语缩略语的意义并非其构成成分意义的简单相加,但并无学者专门就汉语缩略语的语义建构进行过研究。至于现代汉语缩略语的认知研究,更是仅有部分学者零星地进行过探讨。语言能力是人类认知能力的一部分,研究语言不能脱离人类认知这一重要决定因素的影响,将缩略语视作独立于人类认知之外的纯粹语言现象进行研究,注定难以深入。鉴于过往研究的不足,我们认为有必要从认知语言学的角度系统深入地研究现代汉语缩略语的生成理据、语义建构以及生成之后的语义拓展。
我们主要运用认知语言学的概念转喻理论、概念整合理论以及概念隐喻理论,采取定性分析为主,辅之以数据分析论证的方法来对现代汉语缩略语进行深入的研究。我们的语料主要来源于《实用缩略语词典》、《现代汉语缩略语词典》,以及以《人民日报》、《光明日服》为代表的主流报纸。通过对现代汉语缩略语语料进行观察、统计和分析,确立现代汉语缩略语的构造原则,并挖掘各种构造原则背后的认知理据；分析不同类型汉语缩略语的意义建构过程,并运用概念整合理论和概念转喻理论的认知参照活动模式加以验证；探讨现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展方式,发掘其语义拓展背后的认知机制。
我们的研究问题主要包括现代汉语缩略语的生成理据、语义建构及生成之后的语义拓展。
在现代汉语缩略语生成的认知理据部分,我们主要从宏观的语用和认知两个层面分别探讨了缩略语生成的经济理据和认知转喻理据。缩略语生成的经济理据部分主要揭示其生成的简缩法则、借形缩略语的经济理据以及缩略语经济性和理据性的竞争。在现代汉语缩略语生成的认知转喻理据部分,我们进一步探讨了缩略语是基于什么样的认知机制来实现经济省力的。此外,我们还从微观层面研究了现代汉语缩略语生成的构造原则及其认知理据。
现代汉语缩略语的语义建构部分则揭示了缩合式缩略语、拼缀式缩略语和节略式缩略语基本意义的不同建构方式,并进一步探讨了现代汉语缩略语转喻意义和隐喻意义的建构过程及其认知机制。
在现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展部分,我们基于对缩略语语料的分析,详细研究了汉语缩略语生成之后语义拓展的方式及影响其语义拓展的认知机制,并进一步探讨了汉语缩略语在转喻认知和隐喻认知交互作用下的复杂语义的拓展过程。
通过对汉语缩略语生成的认知理据、语义建构以及生成之后语义拓展的研究,我们主要有以下发现：
1.现代汉语缩略语的生成是基于转喻认知的有理据性行为
从语用的角度来看,汉语缩略语生成的理据是经济省力。但经济性不能单方面从缩略语创造者的角度去考虑,而是要兼顾理解者的方便,实现双方共同的经济性。此外,经济性必然会带来理据性的磨蚀,因此缩略语生成时在满足经济性条件的前提下,要尽可能使其语义透明,理据性强。
从宏观的认知角度来看,汉语缩略语的生成理据是“部分的语言形式代替完整的语言形式”的概念转喻。正是部分代整体的转喻认知才使得我们可以用缩略语来代替原式,实现表达上的经济。
从微观的认知角度来看,汉语缩略语的构造理据同样是概念转喻。汉语缩略语构造时的取首原则其实是一种位置突显。从认知的角度看,首先,居首的位置常常是最为重要、最容易引起注意和最容易记忆的；其次,首字处于突显位置,在还原时易于联想记忆、扩展激活,具有更好的启动效应。缩略语构造时的语义显豁原则其实是一种语义突显,保留意义显豁的成分可以增强语义透明度,方便解读者理解。避歧原则可以被视为一种词形突显,按避歧原则生成的缩略语相对容易激活,还原时所付出的认知努力相对较少。缩略语构造的取首原则、语义显豁原则和避歧原则,其实质都是一种突显,都是将最为突显的部分保留,以这一突显的“部分”去代替“整体”。
2.现代汉语缩略语基于概念整合和概念转喻来完成语义建构
汉语缩合式缩略语和拼缀式缩略语诞生之初对于人们而言往往是新词语,因此它们的语义建构是由缩略语解构的语素充当认知参照点,激活相关词汇概念进行概念整合的结果。整合的结果还可能发生进一步的整合,从而实现缩略语隐喻意义的建构,也可能充当认知参照点实现缩略语转喻意义的建构。节略式缩略语因其保留下来的往往是一个意义相对完整的单位或者是单音节的语素,无法进行概念整合,因此其语义建构是一个以高度突显的缩略语为参照点,引导通达其原式的推理还原过程。语境在缩略语的语义建构过程中扮演着至关重要的提示和限制作用。
3.现代汉语缩略语生成之后还会通过概念转喻和概念隐喻来实现其语义拓展
对认知经济性的追求促使人们基于现有的缩略语,不断拓展其语义。概念转喻和概念隐喻是汉语缩略语语义拓展背后的认知机制。相对于隐喻拓展而言,汉语缩略语语义的转喻拓展更多,这印证了认知语言学派关于转喻是更为基本的意义拓展方式的主张。此外,在缩略语的语义拓展过程中转喻和隐喻常常交织在一起,既有基于转喻的隐喻拓展,也有基于隐喻的转喻拓展,体现了转喻和隐喻的连续体关系。
从认知的角度对现代汉语缩略语进行研究,有助于发现隐藏于其生成、语义建构和语义拓展背后的认知规律,拓宽了其研究范围；我们的研究还丰富了认知语言学的理论内涵；并可以为今后现代汉语词汇研究提供新的视角；也可以为现代汉语缩略语的翻译、对外汉语教学,以及相关词典的编撰提供参考。
现代汉语缩略语是一种十分复杂的语言现象,尽管我们努力做到系统的研究,但难免挂一漏万。此外,我们采用认知语言学理论对现代汉语缩略语进行定性分析研究,也不可避免地在一定程度上带有主观性,我们的结论有待今后进一步的验证。
The Least Effort Principle, also called Economy Principle, is one of the fundamental laws in impelling and guiding human language behavior. One of the major reflections of Economy Principle in language is the abundant use of abbreviations.
Previous studies of Modern Chinese Abbreviations (henceforth MCA) underwent the transformation from rhetoric to lexicology. Even in the field of lexicology, scholars fluctuated on the definition and classification of MCA for quite a long time. Some scholars conducted useful explorations of the foramtional motivation of MCA from the aspects of Economy Principle, but they just took a one-sided view in exploring economy from the speaker's perspective only. Moreover, they totally ignored the fact that economy would definitely cause the erosion of motivation. Some scholars did certain useful explorations of the formational motivation and put forward some reasonable constructional principles, but the most important and common one,"Keeping Initial Character Principle" was neglected. To make matters worse, scholars usually took a descriptive approach instead of an explanatory one. Some scholars carried out valuable studies of the grammatical functions of MCA, but they only focused on the change of parts of speech of MCA and totally neglected their meaning change. Even worse, no scholars have studied the meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage. In addition, though scholars reached a consensus that meanings of MCA were not the sum of their components'meanings, no scholars have studied the meaning construction of MCA. As to the cognitive study of MCA, only few scholars sporadically explored MCA from a cognitive angle. Language is not self-sufficient, but is an important part of human cognition. Therefore, Language study cannot be separated from its determinant factor of human cognition. Any study of MCA in isolation from cognition was doomed to be superficial and unsystematic. In view of the drawbacks of previous studies, we think it necessary to make a comparatively intensive study of the foramtional motivation, meaning construction and meaning extension of MCA after their coinage from a cognitive perspective.
Based on conceptual metonymy theory, conceptual integration theory and conceptual metaphor theory, taking a qualitative analysis approach supported by data analysis, we have done an in-depth study of MCA. The data used in the present study were collected from A Practical Chinese Abbreviations Dictionary, Modern Chinese Abbreviations Dictionary and mainstream newspapers like People's Daily and Guangming Daily. On the basis of observation, statistics and analysis of MCA data, we have established the constructional principles of MCA and probed into the cognitive motivation behind those principles. At the same time, we have analyzed the meaning construction processes of different kinds of MCA and verified them with conceptual integration theory and the reference-point patter under the framework of conceptual metonymy theory. Furthermore, we have explored the patterns of meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage and the cognitive mechanisms behind these processes.
Major research questions in the dissertation include the exploration of the foramtional motivation, meaning construction as well as meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage.
As far as foramtional motivation is concerned, we have mainly dealt with the macro-level economy motivation and cognitive metonymical motivation from pragmatic and cognitive aspects respectively. As for economy motivation, we have probed into the "Law of Abbreviation" behind the creation of MCA, the economy motivation of homographic MCA, as well as the competition between economy and motivation of MCA. In addition, we have discussed the cognitive mechanism which guarantees the realization of economy of MCA. Still, we have gone a step further to explore the micro-level consturctional principles of MCA and their cognitive motivation.
In the meaning construction part, we looked into the different meaning construction patterns of various kinds MCA. On top of that, we also probed into the meaning construction of metonymical meaning and metaphorical meaning of MCA and revealed the cognitive mechanisms involved in those processes.
In the meaning extension part, we studied the patterns of the meaning extension of MCA after their coinage in detail by the analysis of MCA data and revealed the cognitive mechanisms behind those processes. Besides, we have also explored the complex meaning extensions of MCA under the interaction between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
The major findings in the present study are as follows.
First, the formation of MCA is metonymy-based, motivated behavior.
From a pragmatic perspective, the foramtional motivation of MCA is economy. However, economy should not be considered only from the speaker's aspect, and the listener's economy should also be taken into consideration. In other words, we should try to seek equilibrium between speakers and listeners, and the true economy is the consideration of economy from both sides. Undeniably, economy will cause the erosion of motivation. Consequently, under the premise of economy, we should coin MCA with semantic transparency and good motivation.
From a macro-level cognitive perspective, the foramtional motivation of MCA is FORMA-CONCEPTA FOR FORMB-CONCEPTA· To be more specific, the conceptual metonymy mechanism of PART OF A FORM FOR THE WHOLE FORMis the foramtional motivation for MCA. It is precisely because of the metonymical cognition of PART FOR WHOLE that we can use abbreviations to stand for their original form for the purpose of realizing economy in communication.
From a micro-level cognitive perspective, the formational motivation of MCA is also conceptual metonymy. The "Keeping Initial Character Principle" in forming MCA is actually a positional prominence. Cognitively, the initial position is always the most important, which is easy to be noticed and memorized. Furthermore, generally speaking, the initial position has better priming effect and is also easy for us to conduct associative memory, spreading activation."Semantic Transparent Principle" can be seen as a semantic prominence. Keeping the prominent meaning parts in MCA can enhance their semantic transparency and thus it is easy for them to be understood."Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" can be seen as one kind of word form prominence. MCA formed under the "Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" are easy to be activated and understood. In essence,"Keeping Initial Character Principle","Semantic Transparent Principle" and "Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" can all be seen as seeking prominence for the ultimate goal of keeping the most prominent parts to stand for the whole.
Second, mechanisms behind the meaning construction of MCA are conceptual blending and conceptual metonymy.
At their birth, reductions and blends were totally new to people, so their meaning constructions are a process of conceptual blending based on the lexical concepts triggered by the decomposed morphemes of MCA. The results of conceptual blending may become inputs for further integrations for the construction of extensional metaphorical meanings, or may act as cognitive reference points for the construction of extensional metonymical meanings. Because clippings are either complete meaning units or monosyllabic morphemes, which cannot be used to conduct conceptual integration, their meaning constructions are MCA serving as cognitive reference points providing mental access to their targets. Admittedly, context plays a vital role in cuing and constraining the meaning constructions of MCA.
Third, after their coinage, MCA will extend their meanings on the basis of conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
The intuition of pursuing economy will prompt people to extend the meaning of MCA, and we find that conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor are the two cognitive mechanisms behind the meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage. Besides, meaning extensions based on conceptual metonymy are a lot more than those on conceptual metaphor, which is in accordance with the view of cognitive linguistics that conceptual metonymy is the fundamental way of meaning extension. Moreover, in the meaning extension process of MCA, sometimes conceptual metonymy intertwines with conceptual metaphor. Thus there are metaphorical meanings based on metonymy as well as metonymical meanings based on metaphor, which is the true reflection of the continuum relationship between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
Taking a cognitive approach to the study of MCA has helped us to find the cognitive regulations behind the foramtional motivation, meaning extension and meaning construction of MCA, and has expanded the scope of the study of MCA. Besides, our study has also enriched the theoretical connotation of cognitive linguistics. Hopefully, the present study can offer a new perspective for the study of modern Chinese lexicology, and can offer reference for the translation of MCA, MCA dictionary compiling and teaching of Chinese as a foreign language.
Modern Chinese Abbreviation is a very complex language phenomenon. Though we hoped in the first place to study MCA systematically, yet our study is far from perfect. Besides, under the guidance of cognitive theories, we have taken a qualitative analysis in the present study, and subjectivity may be heavy. Therefore, there is need for improvement and further verification in our conclusions.
现代汉语缩略语的研究经历了从修辞学到词汇学的转变。即便在词汇学领域,相当长一段时间内学者们在其界定和分类上徘徊不前。后来虽然有学者从经济省力的角度对现代汉语缩略语的生成理据进行了研究,但他们主要从言者角度去讨论省力,而且基本上忽视了缩略语经济性所导致的理据性的磨蚀。另有一些学者对缩略语的构造理据进行了有益的探讨,提出了一些较为合理的构造原则,但构造汉语缩略语最为明显的取首原则却被忽视,并且遗憾的是,这些构造原则均是以描述为主,缺乏合理的解释。此外,一些学者还对现代汉语缩略语的语法功能进行了有价值的探讨,但他们只关注缩略语生成前后词性的转变,而完全忽视其意义上的变化,现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展更是少有学者探讨。尽管学者们承认现代汉语缩略语的意义并非其构成成分意义的简单相加,但并无学者专门就汉语缩略语的语义建构进行过研究。至于现代汉语缩略语的认知研究,更是仅有部分学者零星地进行过探讨。语言能力是人类认知能力的一部分,研究语言不能脱离人类认知这一重要决定因素的影响,将缩略语视作独立于人类认知之外的纯粹语言现象进行研究,注定难以深入。鉴于过往研究的不足,我们认为有必要从认知语言学的角度系统深入地研究现代汉语缩略语的生成理据、语义建构以及生成之后的语义拓展。
我们主要运用认知语言学的概念转喻理论、概念整合理论以及概念隐喻理论,采取定性分析为主,辅之以数据分析论证的方法来对现代汉语缩略语进行深入的研究。我们的语料主要来源于《实用缩略语词典》、《现代汉语缩略语词典》,以及以《人民日报》、《光明日服》为代表的主流报纸。通过对现代汉语缩略语语料进行观察、统计和分析,确立现代汉语缩略语的构造原则,并挖掘各种构造原则背后的认知理据；分析不同类型汉语缩略语的意义建构过程,并运用概念整合理论和概念转喻理论的认知参照活动模式加以验证；探讨现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展方式,发掘其语义拓展背后的认知机制。
我们的研究问题主要包括现代汉语缩略语的生成理据、语义建构及生成之后的语义拓展。
在现代汉语缩略语生成的认知理据部分,我们主要从宏观的语用和认知两个层面分别探讨了缩略语生成的经济理据和认知转喻理据。缩略语生成的经济理据部分主要揭示其生成的简缩法则、借形缩略语的经济理据以及缩略语经济性和理据性的竞争。在现代汉语缩略语生成的认知转喻理据部分,我们进一步探讨了缩略语是基于什么样的认知机制来实现经济省力的。此外,我们还从微观层面研究了现代汉语缩略语生成的构造原则及其认知理据。
现代汉语缩略语的语义建构部分则揭示了缩合式缩略语、拼缀式缩略语和节略式缩略语基本意义的不同建构方式,并进一步探讨了现代汉语缩略语转喻意义和隐喻意义的建构过程及其认知机制。
在现代汉语缩略语生成之后的语义拓展部分,我们基于对缩略语语料的分析,详细研究了汉语缩略语生成之后语义拓展的方式及影响其语义拓展的认知机制,并进一步探讨了汉语缩略语在转喻认知和隐喻认知交互作用下的复杂语义的拓展过程。
通过对汉语缩略语生成的认知理据、语义建构以及生成之后语义拓展的研究,我们主要有以下发现：
1.现代汉语缩略语的生成是基于转喻认知的有理据性行为
从语用的角度来看,汉语缩略语生成的理据是经济省力。但经济性不能单方面从缩略语创造者的角度去考虑,而是要兼顾理解者的方便,实现双方共同的经济性。此外,经济性必然会带来理据性的磨蚀,因此缩略语生成时在满足经济性条件的前提下,要尽可能使其语义透明,理据性强。
从宏观的认知角度来看,汉语缩略语的生成理据是“部分的语言形式代替完整的语言形式”的概念转喻。正是部分代整体的转喻认知才使得我们可以用缩略语来代替原式,实现表达上的经济。
从微观的认知角度来看,汉语缩略语的构造理据同样是概念转喻。汉语缩略语构造时的取首原则其实是一种位置突显。从认知的角度看,首先,居首的位置常常是最为重要、最容易引起注意和最容易记忆的；其次,首字处于突显位置,在还原时易于联想记忆、扩展激活,具有更好的启动效应。缩略语构造时的语义显豁原则其实是一种语义突显,保留意义显豁的成分可以增强语义透明度,方便解读者理解。避歧原则可以被视为一种词形突显,按避歧原则生成的缩略语相对容易激活,还原时所付出的认知努力相对较少。缩略语构造的取首原则、语义显豁原则和避歧原则,其实质都是一种突显,都是将最为突显的部分保留,以这一突显的“部分”去代替“整体”。
2.现代汉语缩略语基于概念整合和概念转喻来完成语义建构
汉语缩合式缩略语和拼缀式缩略语诞生之初对于人们而言往往是新词语,因此它们的语义建构是由缩略语解构的语素充当认知参照点,激活相关词汇概念进行概念整合的结果。整合的结果还可能发生进一步的整合,从而实现缩略语隐喻意义的建构,也可能充当认知参照点实现缩略语转喻意义的建构。节略式缩略语因其保留下来的往往是一个意义相对完整的单位或者是单音节的语素,无法进行概念整合,因此其语义建构是一个以高度突显的缩略语为参照点,引导通达其原式的推理还原过程。语境在缩略语的语义建构过程中扮演着至关重要的提示和限制作用。
3.现代汉语缩略语生成之后还会通过概念转喻和概念隐喻来实现其语义拓展
对认知经济性的追求促使人们基于现有的缩略语,不断拓展其语义。概念转喻和概念隐喻是汉语缩略语语义拓展背后的认知机制。相对于隐喻拓展而言,汉语缩略语语义的转喻拓展更多,这印证了认知语言学派关于转喻是更为基本的意义拓展方式的主张。此外,在缩略语的语义拓展过程中转喻和隐喻常常交织在一起,既有基于转喻的隐喻拓展,也有基于隐喻的转喻拓展,体现了转喻和隐喻的连续体关系。
从认知的角度对现代汉语缩略语进行研究,有助于发现隐藏于其生成、语义建构和语义拓展背后的认知规律,拓宽了其研究范围；我们的研究还丰富了认知语言学的理论内涵；并可以为今后现代汉语词汇研究提供新的视角；也可以为现代汉语缩略语的翻译、对外汉语教学,以及相关词典的编撰提供参考。
现代汉语缩略语是一种十分复杂的语言现象,尽管我们努力做到系统的研究,但难免挂一漏万。此外,我们采用认知语言学理论对现代汉语缩略语进行定性分析研究,也不可避免地在一定程度上带有主观性,我们的结论有待今后进一步的验证。
The Least Effort Principle, also called Economy Principle, is one of the fundamental laws in impelling and guiding human language behavior. One of the major reflections of Economy Principle in language is the abundant use of abbreviations.
Previous studies of Modern Chinese Abbreviations (henceforth MCA) underwent the transformation from rhetoric to lexicology. Even in the field of lexicology, scholars fluctuated on the definition and classification of MCA for quite a long time. Some scholars conducted useful explorations of the foramtional motivation of MCA from the aspects of Economy Principle, but they just took a one-sided view in exploring economy from the speaker's perspective only. Moreover, they totally ignored the fact that economy would definitely cause the erosion of motivation. Some scholars did certain useful explorations of the formational motivation and put forward some reasonable constructional principles, but the most important and common one,"Keeping Initial Character Principle" was neglected. To make matters worse, scholars usually took a descriptive approach instead of an explanatory one. Some scholars carried out valuable studies of the grammatical functions of MCA, but they only focused on the change of parts of speech of MCA and totally neglected their meaning change. Even worse, no scholars have studied the meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage. In addition, though scholars reached a consensus that meanings of MCA were not the sum of their components'meanings, no scholars have studied the meaning construction of MCA. As to the cognitive study of MCA, only few scholars sporadically explored MCA from a cognitive angle. Language is not self-sufficient, but is an important part of human cognition. Therefore, Language study cannot be separated from its determinant factor of human cognition. Any study of MCA in isolation from cognition was doomed to be superficial and unsystematic. In view of the drawbacks of previous studies, we think it necessary to make a comparatively intensive study of the foramtional motivation, meaning construction and meaning extension of MCA after their coinage from a cognitive perspective.
Based on conceptual metonymy theory, conceptual integration theory and conceptual metaphor theory, taking a qualitative analysis approach supported by data analysis, we have done an in-depth study of MCA. The data used in the present study were collected from A Practical Chinese Abbreviations Dictionary, Modern Chinese Abbreviations Dictionary and mainstream newspapers like People's Daily and Guangming Daily. On the basis of observation, statistics and analysis of MCA data, we have established the constructional principles of MCA and probed into the cognitive motivation behind those principles. At the same time, we have analyzed the meaning construction processes of different kinds of MCA and verified them with conceptual integration theory and the reference-point patter under the framework of conceptual metonymy theory. Furthermore, we have explored the patterns of meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage and the cognitive mechanisms behind these processes.
Major research questions in the dissertation include the exploration of the foramtional motivation, meaning construction as well as meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage.
As far as foramtional motivation is concerned, we have mainly dealt with the macro-level economy motivation and cognitive metonymical motivation from pragmatic and cognitive aspects respectively. As for economy motivation, we have probed into the "Law of Abbreviation" behind the creation of MCA, the economy motivation of homographic MCA, as well as the competition between economy and motivation of MCA. In addition, we have discussed the cognitive mechanism which guarantees the realization of economy of MCA. Still, we have gone a step further to explore the micro-level consturctional principles of MCA and their cognitive motivation.
In the meaning construction part, we looked into the different meaning construction patterns of various kinds MCA. On top of that, we also probed into the meaning construction of metonymical meaning and metaphorical meaning of MCA and revealed the cognitive mechanisms involved in those processes.
In the meaning extension part, we studied the patterns of the meaning extension of MCA after their coinage in detail by the analysis of MCA data and revealed the cognitive mechanisms behind those processes. Besides, we have also explored the complex meaning extensions of MCA under the interaction between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
The major findings in the present study are as follows.
First, the formation of MCA is metonymy-based, motivated behavior.
From a pragmatic perspective, the foramtional motivation of MCA is economy. However, economy should not be considered only from the speaker's aspect, and the listener's economy should also be taken into consideration. In other words, we should try to seek equilibrium between speakers and listeners, and the true economy is the consideration of economy from both sides. Undeniably, economy will cause the erosion of motivation. Consequently, under the premise of economy, we should coin MCA with semantic transparency and good motivation.
From a macro-level cognitive perspective, the foramtional motivation of MCA is FORMA-CONCEPTA FOR FORMB-CONCEPTA· To be more specific, the conceptual metonymy mechanism of PART OF A FORM FOR THE WHOLE FORMis the foramtional motivation for MCA. It is precisely because of the metonymical cognition of PART FOR WHOLE that we can use abbreviations to stand for their original form for the purpose of realizing economy in communication.
From a micro-level cognitive perspective, the formational motivation of MCA is also conceptual metonymy. The "Keeping Initial Character Principle" in forming MCA is actually a positional prominence. Cognitively, the initial position is always the most important, which is easy to be noticed and memorized. Furthermore, generally speaking, the initial position has better priming effect and is also easy for us to conduct associative memory, spreading activation."Semantic Transparent Principle" can be seen as a semantic prominence. Keeping the prominent meaning parts in MCA can enhance their semantic transparency and thus it is easy for them to be understood."Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" can be seen as one kind of word form prominence. MCA formed under the "Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" are easy to be activated and understood. In essence,"Keeping Initial Character Principle","Semantic Transparent Principle" and "Avoiding Ambiguity Principle" can all be seen as seeking prominence for the ultimate goal of keeping the most prominent parts to stand for the whole.
Second, mechanisms behind the meaning construction of MCA are conceptual blending and conceptual metonymy.
At their birth, reductions and blends were totally new to people, so their meaning constructions are a process of conceptual blending based on the lexical concepts triggered by the decomposed morphemes of MCA. The results of conceptual blending may become inputs for further integrations for the construction of extensional metaphorical meanings, or may act as cognitive reference points for the construction of extensional metonymical meanings. Because clippings are either complete meaning units or monosyllabic morphemes, which cannot be used to conduct conceptual integration, their meaning constructions are MCA serving as cognitive reference points providing mental access to their targets. Admittedly, context plays a vital role in cuing and constraining the meaning constructions of MCA.
Third, after their coinage, MCA will extend their meanings on the basis of conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
The intuition of pursuing economy will prompt people to extend the meaning of MCA, and we find that conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor are the two cognitive mechanisms behind the meaning extensions of MCA after their coinage. Besides, meaning extensions based on conceptual metonymy are a lot more than those on conceptual metaphor, which is in accordance with the view of cognitive linguistics that conceptual metonymy is the fundamental way of meaning extension. Moreover, in the meaning extension process of MCA, sometimes conceptual metonymy intertwines with conceptual metaphor. Thus there are metaphorical meanings based on metonymy as well as metonymical meanings based on metaphor, which is the true reflection of the continuum relationship between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor.
Taking a cognitive approach to the study of MCA has helped us to find the cognitive regulations behind the foramtional motivation, meaning extension and meaning construction of MCA, and has expanded the scope of the study of MCA. Besides, our study has also enriched the theoretical connotation of cognitive linguistics. Hopefully, the present study can offer a new perspective for the study of modern Chinese lexicology, and can offer reference for the translation of MCA, MCA dictionary compiling and teaching of Chinese as a foreign language.
Modern Chinese Abbreviation is a very complex language phenomenon. Though we hoped in the first place to study MCA systematically, yet our study is far from perfect. Besides, under the guidance of cognitive theories, we have taken a qualitative analysis in the present study, and subjectivity may be heavy. Therefore, there is need for improvement and further verification in our conclusions.
引文
[1]Alac, M. & S. Coulson.2004. The man, the key, or the car: who or what is parked out back? [J]. Cognitive Science Online 2:21-34.
[2]Bache, C.2005. Constraining conceptual integration theory:Levels of blending and disintegration[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1615-1635.
[3]Benczes,R.2011. Blending and creativity [A]. In Handl, Sandra. & Hans-Jorg Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.219-245.
[4]Barcelona A.2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor[A]. In A. Barcelona(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective[C].Berlin: Moulton De Gruyter.31-58.
[5]Barcelona A.2003. Clarifiying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York:Moulton De Gruyter.
[6]Bauer, L.1983. English Word Formation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7]Bybee, J.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition[J]. Language 82:711-733.
[8]Cannon, G.1972. A History of the English Language[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[9]Cannon, G.1986. Blends in English word-formation [J]. Linguistics (24):725-753.
[10]Caramazza A, A. Laudanna, C. Romani.1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology [J].Cognition 28:297-332.
[11]Carroll, D. W.2000. Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[12]Carston,R.1988.Implicature,explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics [A]. In R. M. Kempson(ed.). The Interface Between Language and Reality[C]. Cambridge:CUP.
[13]Chang, J.-S., and Y.-T. Lai.2004. A preliminary study on probabilistic models for Chinese abbreviations[Z]. In:Proceedings of the 3rd SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, Barcelona, Spain.9-16.
[14]Chen, S. & E. Bates.1998.The dissociation between nouns and verbs in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia: findings from Chinese[J]. Aphasiology 12:5-36.
[15]Collins, A. & E. Loftus.1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing[J]. Psychological Review, Vol.82(6):407-428.
[16]Coulson, S.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[17]Coulson, S. & T. Oakley.2000. Blending basics[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11-3/4:175-196.
[18]Coulson, S. & T. Oakley.2003. Metonymy and conceptual blending[A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thonrburg(eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Infer encing[C]. Amstedram:John Benjamins Publishing Company.51-79.
[19]Coulson, S. & G. Fauconnier.1999. Fake guns and stone lions: conceptual blendings and privative adjectives [A]. In B. A. Fox, D. Jurafsky and L. Michaelis (eds.). Cognition and Function in Language[C]. Stanford, California:Publications of the CSLI.143-158.
[20]Coulson, S.& T. Oakley.2005. Blending and coded meaning:Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1510-1536.
[21]Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4-4:335-370.
[22]Croft, W. & A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[23]Cummings,L.2005. Pragmatics:A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective[M]. Edinburgh:Edinburg University Press.
[24]Deane, P. D.1988. Polysemy and cognition[J]. Lingua 75:325-361.
[25]Dirven, R. & M. Verspoor.1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[26]Dirven, R.1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata[A]. In Panther and G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[27]Downing, P.1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns [J]. Language (53):810-842.
[28]Evans, V. & M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
[29]Evans, V.2010. Figurative language understanding in LCCM Theory[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 21-4:601-662.
[30]Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[31]Fauconnier,G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[32]Fauconnier, G.1999. Methods and generalizations [A].In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[33]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Conceptual integration networks [J]. Cognitive Science,22(2):133-187.
[34]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1999. Metonymy and conceptual integration [A]. In Panther and G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[35]Fauconnier,G. & M. Turner.2000. Compression and global insight[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11:283-304.
[36]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.2002. The Way We Think [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[37]Frege, G.1892. On sense and reference[A]. In P. Geach & M. Black(eds.), Translations from the Writings of Gottlob Frege[C].2nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell,1966:56-78.
[38]Giora, R.1997. Understanding figurative and literal language:The graded salience hypothesis[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3):183-206.
[39]Givon, T.1990. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction Vol II[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[40]Givon, T.1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive [J]. Studies in Language 18-2:265-337.
[41]Goossens, L.1990. Metaphtonymy:the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1-3:323-340.
[42]Gries, S.2006. Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation: A corpus-based perspective [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17-4:535-558.
[43]Guohong Fu et al.2006.A Hybrid Approach to Chinese Abbreviation Expansion[A]. In Y. Matsumoto et al. (Eds.):Computer Processing of Oriental Languages[C]. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.277-287.
[44]Haiman, J.1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias [J].Lingua 50: 329-357.
[45]Haiman, J.1985. Natural Syntax:Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge:CUP. Reprinted in 2009. Beijing:Beijing World Publishing Corporation.
[46]Handl, S.2011. Salience and the conventionality of metonymies [A]. In Handl, S. & Hans-Jorg Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.83-112.
[47]Heine,B-, U. Claudi, F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[48]Jespersen, O.1922. Langugage:Its Nature, Development and Origin[M]. London:George Allen& Unwin Ltd.
[49]Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. In Ortony (ed.).Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[50]Lakoff,G.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M].Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[51]Lakoff, G.2005. Cognitive linguistics:What it means and where it is going [J].外国语(2)：2-22.
[52]Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[53]Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh[M]. New York:Basic Books.
[54]Lakoff, G. & M. Turner.1999. More Than Cool Reason: A Field of Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[55]Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. I:Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
[56]Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II Descriptive Applications [M].Stanford:Stanford University Press.
[57]Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:1-38.
[58]Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[59]Langacker, R. W.2004. Metonymy in grammar [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 6:2-23.
[60]Langacker, R. W.2005. Construction grammars:Cognitive, radical, and less so [A]. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and M. S. Cervel(eds.). Cogntive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[61]Lehere, A.1996. Identifying and interpreting blends:An experimental approach [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:359-390.
[62]Libben, G.2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues [A]. In Libben G, & G. Jarema(eds.). The Representation and Processing of Compound Words[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1-22.
[63]Lyons, J.199'5. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[64]Matlin, M.1983. Cognition[M]. NewYork:CBS College Publishing.
[65]Peirsman, Y. & D.Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):269-316.
[66]Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg.2005. Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy [A]. In Gorska, E. & G. Radden(eds.)Metonymy-Metaphor Collage[C]. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
[67]Plag, I.2003. Word Formation in English[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[68]Preissl, H. et al.1995.Evoked potentials distinguish between nouns and verbs [J].Neuroscience Letters 197:81-83.
[69]Radden, G.2000. How metonymies are metaphors[A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[70]Radden, G.2003. How metonymies are metaphors [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York:Moulton De Gruyter.
[71]Radden, G. & Z. Kovecses.1999. Towards a theory of metonymy [A]. In Panther, K-U. & G. Radden(ed.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
[72]Rosch, E. H.1975. Cognitive reference points[J]. Cognitive Psychology 7(4):532-47.
[73]Saeed, J.1997. Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
[74]Schmid, H.2011. Conceptual blending, relevance and N+N-compounds[J]. In Handl, S.&H. Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.219-245.
[75]Simpson G. B. & H. Kang.1994. Inhibitory processing in the recognition of homograph meaning[A]. In Dagenbach, D.(ed.). Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language[C]. Walham:Academic Press.359-381.
[76]Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics-Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[77]Tabakowska, E.1999. Linguistic expression of perceptual relationships:iconicity as a principle of text organization [A]. In Nanny, O. & M. Fischer (eds.) Form Mining Meaning[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
[78]Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I:Concept Structure Systems [M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press.
[79]Taylor, J. R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[80]Taylor, J. R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
[81]Turner, M.1991. Reading Minds:The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press.
[82]Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[83]Warren, B.1999. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[84]Werner, H. & B. Kaplan.1963. Symbol-Formation:An Organismic-Development Approach to Language and the Expression of Thought[M]. NewYork/London/Sidney:Wiley.
[85]Wierzbicka, A.1988. The Semantics of Grammar[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[86]Yaning Nie & Rongchen.2008. Water metaphors and metonymies in Chinese[J]. Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3):492-516.
[87]Zhuo Jing-Schmidt.2008. Much mouth much tongue:Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behaviour [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 19-2:241-282.
[88]Zipf, G. K.1936/1999. Human The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology [M]. First published by George Routledge&Sons,Ltd. Reprinted by London/New York: Routledge.
[89]Zipf, G. K.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Press, INC.
[90]白解红,2009,当代英汉词语的认知语义研究[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
[91]白解红,陈忠平,2011,20世纪中期以来英汉新词语的来源及其语义认知机制[J],外国语文(5)：34-38。
[92]白解红,王勇,2013,网络语境下转类词的动态概念化模式[J],中国外语(6)：27-31。
[93]蔡德荣,1985,汉语的词语简缩及其规范[J],河北大学学报(3)。
[94]蔡辉,孙莹,张辉,2013,浮现中的熟语性：“程度副词+名词”构式的ERP研究[J],解放军外国语学院学报(1)：1-7。
[95]蔡基刚,2008,英汉词汇对比研究[M]。上海：复旦大学出版社。
[96]曹炜,2004,现代汉语词汇研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
[97]陈望道,1979,修辞学发凡[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
[98]陈建民,1963,现代汉语里的简称[J],中国语文(4)。
[99]池昌海,钟舟海,2004,“白骨精”与“无知少女”:托形格略析[J],修辞学习(5)：58-59。
[100]储泽祥,刘街生,1997,“细节显现”与“副+名[J],语文建设(6)：15-19。
[101]邓云华,白解红等,2009,英汉转类词的认知研究[J],外语研究(6)：17-20。
[102]邓耀臣,冯志伟,2013,词汇长度与词汇频数关系的计量语言学研究[J],外国语(3)：29-39。
[103]戴浩一,1997,汉语的词类转变和汉语构词的羡余原则[J],中国境内的语言暨语言学(3)。
[104]丁声树,1999,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[105]丁秀菊,2003,缩略产生探析[J],山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6)：90-93。
[106]董秀芳,2001,词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展[M]。成都：四川民族出版社
[107]董燕萍,2005,心理语言学与外语教学[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社
[108]方元,1984,分析综合一统一的认识过程、方法和逻辑[J],社会科学(6)：82-87。
[109]高航,2009,认知语法与汉语转类问题[M]。上海：上海交通大学出版社
[110]高航,严辰松,2006,英语空间图式‘'Front-Back'的隐喻性扩展[J],四川外语学院学报(6)：71-76。
[111]宫齐,聂志平,2006,现代汉语四字词语缩略的制约条件[J],语言文字应用(2)：64-70。
[112]郭良夫,1982,论缩略[J],中国语文(2)。
[113]桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[114]黄伯荣,廖序东,1997,现代汉语[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
[115]黄福荣,周治金,2012,词汇歧义消解的脑机制[J],心理科学进展Vo1.20,No.10：1551-1559。
[116]胡明扬,1995,名动兼类的计量考察[J],语言研究(2)。
[117]胡明扬,1996,词类问题考察[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
[118]胡裕树,1995,现代汉语(重订本)[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
[119]黄洁,2009a,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J],解放军外国语学院学报(1)：9-13。
[120]黄洁,2009b,基于参照点理论的汉语隐喻和转喻的汉语名名复合词认知研究[D],上海外国语大学博士论文。
[121]姜望琪,2005,Zpif与省力原则[J],同济大学学报(社会科学版)(1)：87-95。
[122]蒋向勇,白解红,2013,汉语ABB式网络重叠词语的认知解读[J],外语研究(3)：30-34。
[123]蒋向勇,白解红,2014,从“高富帅”看网络拼缀词形式和意义的统一[J],湖南师范大学社会科学学报(1)：112-116。
[124]蒋向勇,邵娟萍,2013,从英汉新词语看语言理据观[J],湖南社会科学(5)：251-253。
[125]李福印,2008,认知语言学概论[M]。北京：北京大学出版社
[126]李苏鸣,1991,“邮编”还是“邮码”[J],语文建设(9)。
[127]李熙宗,1983,论语词的紧缩[A],载倪海曙主编,语文现代化(第1辑)[C]。北京：知识出版社。
[128]李熙宗,孙莲芬,1986,略语手册[Z]。北京：知识出版社。
[129]林汉达,1955,什么是词—小于词的不是词[J],中国语文(4)。
[130]林正军,杨忠,2005,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J],外语教学与研究(5)：362-367。
[131]凌远征,1987,现代专名略语[J],语文研究(3)。
[132]凌远征,现代汉语缩略语[M]。北京：语文出版社,2000。
[133]刘桂兰,蒋向勇,2010,英式歇后语Tom Swifty的认知语用解[J],学术界(9)：133-139。
[134]刘桂兰,蒋向勇,2012,汉语新式缩合词的模因论阐释[J],中国外语(4)：45-50。
[135]刘红妮,2013,结构省略与词汇化[J],语文研究(1)：22-30。
[136]刘焱,2007,“V掉”的语义类型与“掉”的虚化[J],中国语文(2)。
[137]刘正光,2006,语言非范畴化—语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[138]刘正光,2002,论转喻和隐喻的连续体关系[J],现代外语(1)：63-72。
[139]陆国强,1999,现代英语词汇学(新版)[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[140]陆俭明,2000,现代汉语基础[M]。北京：线装书局。
[141]陆镜光,2006,试论小句在汉语语法中的地位[J],汉语学报(3)： 2-14。
[142]吕叔湘,1982,中国文法要略(新1版)[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[143]吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[144]吕叔湘,朱德熙,1951/1979,语法修辞讲话[M]。北京：中国青年出版社／沈阳：辽宁教育出版社。
[145]马庆株,1987,缩略语的性质、语法功能和运用[J],语言教学与研究(3)：20-27。
[146]马庆株,1988,关于缩略语及其构成方式[A],载南开大学中文系编,语言研究论丛(第五辑)[C]。天津：南开大学出版社。
[147]闵龙华,1984,简略语[J],南京师范大学学报(社会科学版)(1)。
[148]潘文国,1997/2002,汉英语对比纲要[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
[149]彭聃龄,张必隐,2004,认知心理学[M]。杭州：浙江教育出版社。
[150]覃修桂,2008,“眼”的概念隐喻—基于语料的英汉对比研究[J],外国语(5)：37-43。
[151]沈家煊,1993,句法的象似性问题[J],外语教学与研究,(1)：2-8。
[152]沈家煊,1999a,不对称和标记论[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
[153]沈家煊,1999b,转喻和转指[J],当代语言学(1)：3-15。
[154]沈家煊,1999c,语法研究的分析和综合[J],外语教学与研究,(2)：1-8。
[155]沈家煊,2006,“糅合”和“截搭”[J],世界汉语教学(4)：5-12。
[156]沈家煊,2009,我看汉语的词类[J],语言科学(1)：1-12。
[157]沈家煊,2010,从“演员是个动词”说起—“名词动用”和“动词名用”的不对称[J],当代修辞学(1)：1-12。
[158]施春宏,2001,名词的描述性语义特征与副名组合的可能性[J],中国语文(3)：212-224。
[159]束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
[160]束定芳,2003,论隐喻与明喻的结构及认知特点[J],外语教学与研究(2)：102-107。
[161]束定芳,2004,隐喻和换喻的差别和联系[J],外国语(3)：26-34。
[162]束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[163]谭景春,1998,名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题[J],中国语文(5)：368-377。
[164]汪榕培,卢晓娟,1997,英语词汇学教程[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[165]王冬梅,2001,动名互转的认知研究[D],中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
[166]王冬梅,2004,动词转指名词的类型及相关解释[J],汉语学习(8)：5-11。
[167]王吉辉,2001,现代汉语缩略词语研究[M]。天津：天津人民出版社。
[168]王吉辉,焦妮娜,2009,汉语缩略语规范原则(草案)[J],术语标准化与信息技术(1)：19-21。
[169]王立廷,沈基松,张小平,1998,缩略语[M]。北京：新华出版社
[170]王仁强,2010,现代汉语词类体系效度研究—以《现代汉语词典》(第5版)词类体系为例[J],外语教学与研究(5)：380-386。
[171]王仁强,陈和敏,2014,基于语料库的动词与构式关系研究—以sneeze及物动词用法的规约化为例[J],外语教学与研究(1)：19-31。
[172]王文斌,熊学亮,2008,认知突显与隐喻相似性[J],外国语(5)：46-54。
[173]王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[174]王寅,2013,构式压制和词汇压制的互动及其转喻机制[J],外语教学与研究(5)：657-668。
[175]王正元,2009,概念整合理论及其应用研究[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
[176]维特根斯坦,1996,哲学研究[M],韩林合译。北京：商务印书馆。
[177]魏在江,2007,概念整合、语用推理与转喻认知[J],四川外语学院学报(1)。
[178]文旭,2001,词序的拟象性探索[J],外语学刊(3)：90-96。
[179]吴本和,1989,谈谈汉语中的缩略语[J],河南大学学报(5)。
[180]武占坤,王勤,1983,现代汉语词汇概要[M]。呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社。
[181]筱文,1959,现代汉语词语的缩简[J],中国语文(3)。
[182]邢福义,1997,“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考[J],语 言研究(2)：1-10。
[183]徐丽华,1994,试论新缩略语[J],浙江师范大学学报(5)。
[184]徐通锵,1997,语言论[M]。长春：东北师大出版社
[185]徐耀民,1988,缩略语的划界和规范问题[J],语文建设(3)。
[186]严辰松,2000,语言理据探究[J],解放军外国语学院学报(6)：1-6。
[187]杨奕鸣,2007,语言的理论假设与神经基础—以当前汉语的若干神经语言学研究为例[J],语言科学(2)：60-83。
[188]杨奕鸣,2012,神经语言学与当代语言学的学术创新[J],中国语文(6)：549-560.
[189]殷志平,1999,构造缩略语的方法和原则[J],语言教学与研究(2)。
[190]刘叔新,2005,汉语描写词汇学(重排本)[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[191]俞理明,2005,汉语缩略研究—缩略：语言符号的再符号化[M]。成都：巴蜀书社。
[192]袁毓林,2010,汉语词类的认知研究和模糊划分[M]。上海：上海教育出版社
[193]张斌,2000,现代汉语[M]。北京：语文出版社。
[194]张伯江,1994,词类活用的功能解释[J],中国语文(5)
[195]张辉,2011,认知语义学研究[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[196]张辉,李佐文,2001,从"red pencils"(?)口"fake guns"谈起：形名组合的认知语义学研究[J],外语研究(2)。
[197]张辉,卢卫中,2010,认知转喻[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
[198]张辉,孙明智,2005,转喻的本质、分类和运作机制[J],外语与外语教学(3)。
[199]张玲,2010,象似语序与突显语序互动研究[D],华东师范大学博士论文。
[200]张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J],外国语(4)：54-58。
[201]张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J],修辞学习(1)：40-43。
[202]张建理,2009,说“裸”[J],杭州师范大学学报(社会科学版)(5)。
[203]张维友,2010,英汉语词汇对比研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[204]张谊生,1996,名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词[J],语言教学与研究(4)：57-75。
[205]张谊生,1997,名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词(续)[J],语言教学与研究(1)：136-143。
[206]张治国,杨玲,2003,缩略语成因之探究[J],山东外语教学(2)：22-24。
[207]赵宏,2011,英汉词汇理据对比性研究[D],华东师范大学博士论文。
[208]赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[209]赵元任,2003,语言问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[210]周国光,2004,现代汉语词汇学导论[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
[211]周荐,1988,缩略词和缩略语[A],载南开大学中文系编,语言研究论丛(第五辑)[C]。天津：南开大学出版社。
[212]周明强,2011,词汇歧义消解的认知解析[J],语言教学与研究(1)：62-68。
[213]周起凤,1957,简称和缩略语初探[J],语文知识(6)。
[214]周启强,白解红,2006,英语拼缀构词的认知机制[J],外语教学与研究(3)：178-183。
[215]周治金,2002,汉语歧义消解过程的研究[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社
[216]周治金等,2003,汉语同音歧义词歧义消解的过程及其抑制机制[J],心理学报35(1)：1-8。
[217]朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[218]朱德熙,1983,自指和转指[J],方言(1)：16-31。
[2]Bache, C.2005. Constraining conceptual integration theory:Levels of blending and disintegration[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1615-1635.
[3]Benczes,R.2011. Blending and creativity [A]. In Handl, Sandra. & Hans-Jorg Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.219-245.
[4]Barcelona A.2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor[A]. In A. Barcelona(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective[C].Berlin: Moulton De Gruyter.31-58.
[5]Barcelona A.2003. Clarifiying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York:Moulton De Gruyter.
[6]Bauer, L.1983. English Word Formation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7]Bybee, J.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition[J]. Language 82:711-733.
[8]Cannon, G.1972. A History of the English Language[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[9]Cannon, G.1986. Blends in English word-formation [J]. Linguistics (24):725-753.
[10]Caramazza A, A. Laudanna, C. Romani.1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology [J].Cognition 28:297-332.
[11]Carroll, D. W.2000. Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[12]Carston,R.1988.Implicature,explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics [A]. In R. M. Kempson(ed.). The Interface Between Language and Reality[C]. Cambridge:CUP.
[13]Chang, J.-S., and Y.-T. Lai.2004. A preliminary study on probabilistic models for Chinese abbreviations[Z]. In:Proceedings of the 3rd SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, Barcelona, Spain.9-16.
[14]Chen, S. & E. Bates.1998.The dissociation between nouns and verbs in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia: findings from Chinese[J]. Aphasiology 12:5-36.
[15]Collins, A. & E. Loftus.1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing[J]. Psychological Review, Vol.82(6):407-428.
[16]Coulson, S.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[17]Coulson, S. & T. Oakley.2000. Blending basics[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11-3/4:175-196.
[18]Coulson, S. & T. Oakley.2003. Metonymy and conceptual blending[A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thonrburg(eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Infer encing[C]. Amstedram:John Benjamins Publishing Company.51-79.
[19]Coulson, S. & G. Fauconnier.1999. Fake guns and stone lions: conceptual blendings and privative adjectives [A]. In B. A. Fox, D. Jurafsky and L. Michaelis (eds.). Cognition and Function in Language[C]. Stanford, California:Publications of the CSLI.143-158.
[20]Coulson, S.& T. Oakley.2005. Blending and coded meaning:Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1510-1536.
[21]Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4-4:335-370.
[22]Croft, W. & A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[23]Cummings,L.2005. Pragmatics:A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective[M]. Edinburgh:Edinburg University Press.
[24]Deane, P. D.1988. Polysemy and cognition[J]. Lingua 75:325-361.
[25]Dirven, R. & M. Verspoor.1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[26]Dirven, R.1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata[A]. In Panther and G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[27]Downing, P.1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns [J]. Language (53):810-842.
[28]Evans, V. & M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
[29]Evans, V.2010. Figurative language understanding in LCCM Theory[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 21-4:601-662.
[30]Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[31]Fauconnier,G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[32]Fauconnier, G.1999. Methods and generalizations [A].In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Foundations, Scope, and Methodology[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[33]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1998. Conceptual integration networks [J]. Cognitive Science,22(2):133-187.
[34]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.1999. Metonymy and conceptual integration [A]. In Panther and G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[35]Fauconnier,G. & M. Turner.2000. Compression and global insight[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11:283-304.
[36]Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner.2002. The Way We Think [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[37]Frege, G.1892. On sense and reference[A]. In P. Geach & M. Black(eds.), Translations from the Writings of Gottlob Frege[C].2nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell,1966:56-78.
[38]Giora, R.1997. Understanding figurative and literal language:The graded salience hypothesis[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3):183-206.
[39]Givon, T.1990. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction Vol II[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[40]Givon, T.1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive [J]. Studies in Language 18-2:265-337.
[41]Goossens, L.1990. Metaphtonymy:the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1-3:323-340.
[42]Gries, S.2006. Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation: A corpus-based perspective [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17-4:535-558.
[43]Guohong Fu et al.2006.A Hybrid Approach to Chinese Abbreviation Expansion[A]. In Y. Matsumoto et al. (Eds.):Computer Processing of Oriental Languages[C]. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.277-287.
[44]Haiman, J.1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias [J].Lingua 50: 329-357.
[45]Haiman, J.1985. Natural Syntax:Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge:CUP. Reprinted in 2009. Beijing:Beijing World Publishing Corporation.
[46]Handl, S.2011. Salience and the conventionality of metonymies [A]. In Handl, S. & Hans-Jorg Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.83-112.
[47]Heine,B-, U. Claudi, F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[48]Jespersen, O.1922. Langugage:Its Nature, Development and Origin[M]. London:George Allen& Unwin Ltd.
[49]Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. In Ortony (ed.).Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[50]Lakoff,G.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M].Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[51]Lakoff, G.2005. Cognitive linguistics:What it means and where it is going [J].外国语(2)：2-22.
[52]Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[53]Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh[M]. New York:Basic Books.
[54]Lakoff, G. & M. Turner.1999. More Than Cool Reason: A Field of Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
[55]Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. I:Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
[56]Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II Descriptive Applications [M].Stanford:Stanford University Press.
[57]Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:1-38.
[58]Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[59]Langacker, R. W.2004. Metonymy in grammar [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 6:2-23.
[60]Langacker, R. W.2005. Construction grammars:Cognitive, radical, and less so [A]. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and M. S. Cervel(eds.). Cogntive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction[C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
[61]Lehere, A.1996. Identifying and interpreting blends:An experimental approach [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:359-390.
[62]Libben, G.2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues [A]. In Libben G, & G. Jarema(eds.). The Representation and Processing of Compound Words[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1-22.
[63]Lyons, J.199'5. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[64]Matlin, M.1983. Cognition[M]. NewYork:CBS College Publishing.
[65]Peirsman, Y. & D.Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):269-316.
[66]Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg.2005. Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy [A]. In Gorska, E. & G. Radden(eds.)Metonymy-Metaphor Collage[C]. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
[67]Plag, I.2003. Word Formation in English[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[68]Preissl, H. et al.1995.Evoked potentials distinguish between nouns and verbs [J].Neuroscience Letters 197:81-83.
[69]Radden, G.2000. How metonymies are metaphors[A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[70]Radden, G.2003. How metonymies are metaphors [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings(ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin/New York:Moulton De Gruyter.
[71]Radden, G. & Z. Kovecses.1999. Towards a theory of metonymy [A]. In Panther, K-U. & G. Radden(ed.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
[72]Rosch, E. H.1975. Cognitive reference points[J]. Cognitive Psychology 7(4):532-47.
[73]Saeed, J.1997. Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
[74]Schmid, H.2011. Conceptual blending, relevance and N+N-compounds[J]. In Handl, S.&H. Schmid(eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending[C]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.219-245.
[75]Simpson G. B. & H. Kang.1994. Inhibitory processing in the recognition of homograph meaning[A]. In Dagenbach, D.(ed.). Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language[C]. Walham:Academic Press.359-381.
[76]Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics-Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[77]Tabakowska, E.1999. Linguistic expression of perceptual relationships:iconicity as a principle of text organization [A]. In Nanny, O. & M. Fischer (eds.) Form Mining Meaning[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
[78]Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I:Concept Structure Systems [M]. Cambridge, MA.:The MIT Press.
[79]Taylor, J. R.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[80]Taylor, J. R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
[81]Turner, M.1991. Reading Minds:The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press.
[82]Turner, M.1996. The Literary Mind[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[83]Warren, B.1999. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[84]Werner, H. & B. Kaplan.1963. Symbol-Formation:An Organismic-Development Approach to Language and the Expression of Thought[M]. NewYork/London/Sidney:Wiley.
[85]Wierzbicka, A.1988. The Semantics of Grammar[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[86]Yaning Nie & Rongchen.2008. Water metaphors and metonymies in Chinese[J]. Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3):492-516.
[87]Zhuo Jing-Schmidt.2008. Much mouth much tongue:Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behaviour [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 19-2:241-282.
[88]Zipf, G. K.1936/1999. Human The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology [M]. First published by George Routledge&Sons,Ltd. Reprinted by London/New York: Routledge.
[89]Zipf, G. K.1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology[M]. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Press, INC.
[90]白解红,2009,当代英汉词语的认知语义研究[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
[91]白解红,陈忠平,2011,20世纪中期以来英汉新词语的来源及其语义认知机制[J],外国语文(5)：34-38。
[92]白解红,王勇,2013,网络语境下转类词的动态概念化模式[J],中国外语(6)：27-31。
[93]蔡德荣,1985,汉语的词语简缩及其规范[J],河北大学学报(3)。
[94]蔡辉,孙莹,张辉,2013,浮现中的熟语性：“程度副词+名词”构式的ERP研究[J],解放军外国语学院学报(1)：1-7。
[95]蔡基刚,2008,英汉词汇对比研究[M]。上海：复旦大学出版社。
[96]曹炜,2004,现代汉语词汇研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
[97]陈望道,1979,修辞学发凡[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
[98]陈建民,1963,现代汉语里的简称[J],中国语文(4)。
[99]池昌海,钟舟海,2004,“白骨精”与“无知少女”:托形格略析[J],修辞学习(5)：58-59。
[100]储泽祥,刘街生,1997,“细节显现”与“副+名[J],语文建设(6)：15-19。
[101]邓云华,白解红等,2009,英汉转类词的认知研究[J],外语研究(6)：17-20。
[102]邓耀臣,冯志伟,2013,词汇长度与词汇频数关系的计量语言学研究[J],外国语(3)：29-39。
[103]戴浩一,1997,汉语的词类转变和汉语构词的羡余原则[J],中国境内的语言暨语言学(3)。
[104]丁声树,1999,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[105]丁秀菊,2003,缩略产生探析[J],山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6)：90-93。
[106]董秀芳,2001,词汇化：汉语双音词的衍生和发展[M]。成都：四川民族出版社
[107]董燕萍,2005,心理语言学与外语教学[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社
[108]方元,1984,分析综合一统一的认识过程、方法和逻辑[J],社会科学(6)：82-87。
[109]高航,2009,认知语法与汉语转类问题[M]。上海：上海交通大学出版社
[110]高航,严辰松,2006,英语空间图式‘'Front-Back'的隐喻性扩展[J],四川外语学院学报(6)：71-76。
[111]宫齐,聂志平,2006,现代汉语四字词语缩略的制约条件[J],语言文字应用(2)：64-70。
[112]郭良夫,1982,论缩略[J],中国语文(2)。
[113]桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[114]黄伯荣,廖序东,1997,现代汉语[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
[115]黄福荣,周治金,2012,词汇歧义消解的脑机制[J],心理科学进展Vo1.20,No.10：1551-1559。
[116]胡明扬,1995,名动兼类的计量考察[J],语言研究(2)。
[117]胡明扬,1996,词类问题考察[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
[118]胡裕树,1995,现代汉语(重订本)[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
[119]黄洁,2009a,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J],解放军外国语学院学报(1)：9-13。
[120]黄洁,2009b,基于参照点理论的汉语隐喻和转喻的汉语名名复合词认知研究[D],上海外国语大学博士论文。
[121]姜望琪,2005,Zpif与省力原则[J],同济大学学报(社会科学版)(1)：87-95。
[122]蒋向勇,白解红,2013,汉语ABB式网络重叠词语的认知解读[J],外语研究(3)：30-34。
[123]蒋向勇,白解红,2014,从“高富帅”看网络拼缀词形式和意义的统一[J],湖南师范大学社会科学学报(1)：112-116。
[124]蒋向勇,邵娟萍,2013,从英汉新词语看语言理据观[J],湖南社会科学(5)：251-253。
[125]李福印,2008,认知语言学概论[M]。北京：北京大学出版社
[126]李苏鸣,1991,“邮编”还是“邮码”[J],语文建设(9)。
[127]李熙宗,1983,论语词的紧缩[A],载倪海曙主编,语文现代化(第1辑)[C]。北京：知识出版社。
[128]李熙宗,孙莲芬,1986,略语手册[Z]。北京：知识出版社。
[129]林汉达,1955,什么是词—小于词的不是词[J],中国语文(4)。
[130]林正军,杨忠,2005,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J],外语教学与研究(5)：362-367。
[131]凌远征,1987,现代专名略语[J],语文研究(3)。
[132]凌远征,现代汉语缩略语[M]。北京：语文出版社,2000。
[133]刘桂兰,蒋向勇,2010,英式歇后语Tom Swifty的认知语用解[J],学术界(9)：133-139。
[134]刘桂兰,蒋向勇,2012,汉语新式缩合词的模因论阐释[J],中国外语(4)：45-50。
[135]刘红妮,2013,结构省略与词汇化[J],语文研究(1)：22-30。
[136]刘焱,2007,“V掉”的语义类型与“掉”的虚化[J],中国语文(2)。
[137]刘正光,2006,语言非范畴化—语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[138]刘正光,2002,论转喻和隐喻的连续体关系[J],现代外语(1)：63-72。
[139]陆国强,1999,现代英语词汇学(新版)[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[140]陆俭明,2000,现代汉语基础[M]。北京：线装书局。
[141]陆镜光,2006,试论小句在汉语语法中的地位[J],汉语学报(3)： 2-14。
[142]吕叔湘,1982,中国文法要略(新1版)[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[143]吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[144]吕叔湘,朱德熙,1951/1979,语法修辞讲话[M]。北京：中国青年出版社／沈阳：辽宁教育出版社。
[145]马庆株,1987,缩略语的性质、语法功能和运用[J],语言教学与研究(3)：20-27。
[146]马庆株,1988,关于缩略语及其构成方式[A],载南开大学中文系编,语言研究论丛(第五辑)[C]。天津：南开大学出版社。
[147]闵龙华,1984,简略语[J],南京师范大学学报(社会科学版)(1)。
[148]潘文国,1997/2002,汉英语对比纲要[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
[149]彭聃龄,张必隐,2004,认知心理学[M]。杭州：浙江教育出版社。
[150]覃修桂,2008,“眼”的概念隐喻—基于语料的英汉对比研究[J],外国语(5)：37-43。
[151]沈家煊,1993,句法的象似性问题[J],外语教学与研究,(1)：2-8。
[152]沈家煊,1999a,不对称和标记论[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
[153]沈家煊,1999b,转喻和转指[J],当代语言学(1)：3-15。
[154]沈家煊,1999c,语法研究的分析和综合[J],外语教学与研究,(2)：1-8。
[155]沈家煊,2006,“糅合”和“截搭”[J],世界汉语教学(4)：5-12。
[156]沈家煊,2009,我看汉语的词类[J],语言科学(1)：1-12。
[157]沈家煊,2010,从“演员是个动词”说起—“名词动用”和“动词名用”的不对称[J],当代修辞学(1)：1-12。
[158]施春宏,2001,名词的描述性语义特征与副名组合的可能性[J],中国语文(3)：212-224。
[159]束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
[160]束定芳,2003,论隐喻与明喻的结构及认知特点[J],外语教学与研究(2)：102-107。
[161]束定芳,2004,隐喻和换喻的差别和联系[J],外国语(3)：26-34。
[162]束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[163]谭景春,1998,名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题[J],中国语文(5)：368-377。
[164]汪榕培,卢晓娟,1997,英语词汇学教程[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[165]王冬梅,2001,动名互转的认知研究[D],中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
[166]王冬梅,2004,动词转指名词的类型及相关解释[J],汉语学习(8)：5-11。
[167]王吉辉,2001,现代汉语缩略词语研究[M]。天津：天津人民出版社。
[168]王吉辉,焦妮娜,2009,汉语缩略语规范原则(草案)[J],术语标准化与信息技术(1)：19-21。
[169]王立廷,沈基松,张小平,1998,缩略语[M]。北京：新华出版社
[170]王仁强,2010,现代汉语词类体系效度研究—以《现代汉语词典》(第5版)词类体系为例[J],外语教学与研究(5)：380-386。
[171]王仁强,陈和敏,2014,基于语料库的动词与构式关系研究—以sneeze及物动词用法的规约化为例[J],外语教学与研究(1)：19-31。
[172]王文斌,熊学亮,2008,认知突显与隐喻相似性[J],外国语(5)：46-54。
[173]王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[174]王寅,2013,构式压制和词汇压制的互动及其转喻机制[J],外语教学与研究(5)：657-668。
[175]王正元,2009,概念整合理论及其应用研究[M]。北京：高等教育出版社。
[176]维特根斯坦,1996,哲学研究[M],韩林合译。北京：商务印书馆。
[177]魏在江,2007,概念整合、语用推理与转喻认知[J],四川外语学院学报(1)。
[178]文旭,2001,词序的拟象性探索[J],外语学刊(3)：90-96。
[179]吴本和,1989,谈谈汉语中的缩略语[J],河南大学学报(5)。
[180]武占坤,王勤,1983,现代汉语词汇概要[M]。呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社。
[181]筱文,1959,现代汉语词语的缩简[J],中国语文(3)。
[182]邢福义,1997,“很淑女”之类说法语言文化背景的思考[J],语 言研究(2)：1-10。
[183]徐丽华,1994,试论新缩略语[J],浙江师范大学学报(5)。
[184]徐通锵,1997,语言论[M]。长春：东北师大出版社
[185]徐耀民,1988,缩略语的划界和规范问题[J],语文建设(3)。
[186]严辰松,2000,语言理据探究[J],解放军外国语学院学报(6)：1-6。
[187]杨奕鸣,2007,语言的理论假设与神经基础—以当前汉语的若干神经语言学研究为例[J],语言科学(2)：60-83。
[188]杨奕鸣,2012,神经语言学与当代语言学的学术创新[J],中国语文(6)：549-560.
[189]殷志平,1999,构造缩略语的方法和原则[J],语言教学与研究(2)。
[190]刘叔新,2005,汉语描写词汇学(重排本)[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[191]俞理明,2005,汉语缩略研究—缩略：语言符号的再符号化[M]。成都：巴蜀书社。
[192]袁毓林,2010,汉语词类的认知研究和模糊划分[M]。上海：上海教育出版社
[193]张斌,2000,现代汉语[M]。北京：语文出版社。
[194]张伯江,1994,词类活用的功能解释[J],中国语文(5)
[195]张辉,2011,认知语义学研究[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[196]张辉,李佐文,2001,从"red pencils"(?)口"fake guns"谈起：形名组合的认知语义学研究[J],外语研究(2)。
[197]张辉,卢卫中,2010,认知转喻[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
[198]张辉,孙明智,2005,转喻的本质、分类和运作机制[J],外语与外语教学(3)。
[199]张玲,2010,象似语序与突显语序互动研究[D],华东师范大学博士论文。
[200]张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J],外国语(4)：54-58。
[201]张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J],修辞学习(1)：40-43。
[202]张建理,2009,说“裸”[J],杭州师范大学学报(社会科学版)(5)。
[203]张维友,2010,英汉语词汇对比研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[204]张谊生,1996,名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词[J],语言教学与研究(4)：57-75。
[205]张谊生,1997,名词的语义基础及功能转化与副词修饰名词(续)[J],语言教学与研究(1)：136-143。
[206]张治国,杨玲,2003,缩略语成因之探究[J],山东外语教学(2)：22-24。
[207]赵宏,2011,英汉词汇理据对比性研究[D],华东师范大学博士论文。
[208]赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[209]赵元任,2003,语言问题[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[210]周国光,2004,现代汉语词汇学导论[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
[211]周荐,1988,缩略词和缩略语[A],载南开大学中文系编,语言研究论丛(第五辑)[C]。天津：南开大学出版社。
[212]周明强,2011,词汇歧义消解的认知解析[J],语言教学与研究(1)：62-68。
[213]周起凤,1957,简称和缩略语初探[J],语文知识(6)。
[214]周启强,白解红,2006,英语拼缀构词的认知机制[J],外语教学与研究(3)：178-183。
[215]周治金,2002,汉语歧义消解过程的研究[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社
[216]周治金等,2003,汉语同音歧义词歧义消解的过程及其抑制机制[J],心理学报35(1)：1-8。
[217]朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
[218]朱德熙,1983,自指和转指[J],方言(1)：16-31。