词汇衔接的转喻研究
|
摘要
词汇衔接指语篇中出现的一部分词汇相互之间存在语义上的联系,或重复,或由其他词语替代,或共同出现(胡壮麟,1994:112)。它是语篇衔接的一种重要手段。自从韩礼德和哈桑于1976年合著的《英语的衔接》一书问世以来,词汇衔接引起了国内外学者的广泛关注。有的学者对词汇衔接的理论本身进行了修正和发展,有的学者则在词汇衔接的应用方面进行了研究,这些方面主要包括外语教学、翻译理论和实践、文体学等。近年来,随着认知语言学的发展,人们又给衔接理论的研究提出了新的视角。
在认知语言学研究中,隐喻一直占据显赫地位,受到研究者的高度重视,而转喻则处在次要位置。近年来,转喻研究逐渐受到重视,人们开始认识到转喻同隐喻一样不仅是一种语言手段更是一种认知和推理的过程。转喻是一种特别类型的心理映现,即通过理解一个人、物体或事件的显著部分,来认识整个人、物体或事件。它是人类重要的思维方式,是人类认识客观世界的重要手段,根植于人们的基本经验之中,构成我们日常思考和行为的方式(Lakoff&Johnson,1980)。其实,转喻更具本原性,即语言本质上是转喻的(Radden&K(o|¨)vecses,1999)。转喻思维在话语的产生与理解中都起着重要的作用。既然转喻是一种重要的思维方式且建立在邻近性(contiguity)和因果关系(causality)的基础上,那么我们就可以用它对语篇的词汇衔接进行解释。事实上,国内外对于这方面的研究还很少,国外只有Al-Sharafi(2004),国内则只有魏在江(2007)做出了初步的探索。
本文中,我们在Al-Sharafi和魏在江研究的基础上,结合Radde和K(o|¨)vecses的转喻理论以及Lakoff的ICM理论对语篇的词汇衔接进行解释。本文由六个部分构成。第一章简要阐述了该文的研究主题、意义、方法和研究框架。第二章为文献回顾,对语篇的词汇衔接在国内外的研究和发展进行了简要概述。第三章首先对转喻理论的发展进行了简要概说,然后又对转喻研究的语篇基础进行了介绍,实际上是为语篇词汇衔接提出了理论基础。第四章是本文的主体部分,即用转喻理论对语篇词汇衔接进行解释。本章中我们主要从以下几个方面进行解释:概括词、同义词、上下义词和整体与部分关系词。本研究表明,Radden与K(o|¨)vecses的理论可用来解释语篇中的概括词,语篇的转喻模式可用来解释语篇中的同义词和上下义词,ICM理论和语篇的转喻模式可用来解释整体部分词。语篇的词汇衔接在本质上是转喻的,这一观点也反过来证明了转喻是一种重要的思维方式。第五章介绍了本研究的应用——特别是在外语教学上的应用:本研究对英语教学中的阅读、词汇、写作和听力都有一定的指导意义。最后一章在总结全文的基础上,指出了本研究的不足,并指明了今后的研究方向。
Lexical cohesion refers to the linguistic phenomenon that some words which appear in the same text have certain relationship in meaning, including repetition, substitution and collocation (Hu Zhuanglin, 1994:112). Lexical cohesion is an important type of cohesive devices. Its conception first systematically appears in Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasan in 1976. Since then, it has attracted the attention of many scholars. Some scholars try to develop the theory itself; and some others try to apply this theory into different fields, such as foreign language teaching, translation theory and practice, stylistics and so on. In recent years, with the development of cognitive linguistics, people offer a new perspective for the study of lexical cohesion.
In cognitive linguistics, metaphor tends to occupy a prominent position and attracts the attention of researchers, while metonymy is taken to be less important. In recent years, people come to realize the importance of metonymy. Just like metaphor, metonymy is not only a linguistic device but also an inferential process. Metonymy is a special kind of mental mapping. People can speak and think metonymically. Metonymy allows us to focus more specifically on prominent aspects of what is being referred to, such as a person, an object or an event. Metonymic concepts are part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Actually, metonymy is more original, namely, language is metonymic in nature (Radden & Kovecses, 1999). Metonymic thought has an important role in the production and comprehension of discourse. Now that metonymy is an important thinking mode of human beings based on the relations of contiguity and causality, we can turn to it for interpreting lexical cohesion in English texts. Actually, there are few scholars who have done researches on this topic except Al-Sharafi (2004) and Wei Zaijiang (2007).
In this thesis, based on Al-Sharafi (2004) and Wei Zaijiang (2007) and other relevant researches, we try to explain lexical cohesion from the perspective of metonymy. This thesis is comprised of six parts. The first chapter introduces our research topic, significance, methodology and general organization. In the second chapter, as the literature review, we give an account of the research development of lexical cohesion both at home and abroad. In Chapter Three, which serves as the theoretical basis of our research, we first briefly introduce the development history of metonymy, then explain the textual basis of metonymic research. The fourth chapter is our major part, in which we try to explain lexical cohesion in the light of metonymy theories. Our discussion is unfolded in terms of the following aspects: general nouns, synonymy, superordinateness and hyponymy, part-whole relationships. It is proved by our research that the category-and-member metonymy and its metonymic relations by Radden and Kovecses (1999) can be used to explain the relations between general nouns; the textual model of metonymy by Al-Sharafi (2004) can be used to account for synonymy, superordinateness and hyponymy. Al-Sharafi's textual model and Lakoff's theory of ICM can be used to analyze part-whole relationships. Lexical cohesive devices are metonymic relations in nature. This opinion also testifies that metonymy is an important thinking mode. Chapter Five discusses the implications of our research for foreign language teaching. This study sheds light on the teaching of English reading, lexis, writing and listening. The last chapter, as the conclusion, summarizes the whole study, points out its limitations and the directions for future research.
在认知语言学研究中,隐喻一直占据显赫地位,受到研究者的高度重视,而转喻则处在次要位置。近年来,转喻研究逐渐受到重视,人们开始认识到转喻同隐喻一样不仅是一种语言手段更是一种认知和推理的过程。转喻是一种特别类型的心理映现,即通过理解一个人、物体或事件的显著部分,来认识整个人、物体或事件。它是人类重要的思维方式,是人类认识客观世界的重要手段,根植于人们的基本经验之中,构成我们日常思考和行为的方式(Lakoff&Johnson,1980)。其实,转喻更具本原性,即语言本质上是转喻的(Radden&K(o|¨)vecses,1999)。转喻思维在话语的产生与理解中都起着重要的作用。既然转喻是一种重要的思维方式且建立在邻近性(contiguity)和因果关系(causality)的基础上,那么我们就可以用它对语篇的词汇衔接进行解释。事实上,国内外对于这方面的研究还很少,国外只有Al-Sharafi(2004),国内则只有魏在江(2007)做出了初步的探索。
本文中,我们在Al-Sharafi和魏在江研究的基础上,结合Radde和K(o|¨)vecses的转喻理论以及Lakoff的ICM理论对语篇的词汇衔接进行解释。本文由六个部分构成。第一章简要阐述了该文的研究主题、意义、方法和研究框架。第二章为文献回顾,对语篇的词汇衔接在国内外的研究和发展进行了简要概述。第三章首先对转喻理论的发展进行了简要概说,然后又对转喻研究的语篇基础进行了介绍,实际上是为语篇词汇衔接提出了理论基础。第四章是本文的主体部分,即用转喻理论对语篇词汇衔接进行解释。本章中我们主要从以下几个方面进行解释:概括词、同义词、上下义词和整体与部分关系词。本研究表明,Radden与K(o|¨)vecses的理论可用来解释语篇中的概括词,语篇的转喻模式可用来解释语篇中的同义词和上下义词,ICM理论和语篇的转喻模式可用来解释整体部分词。语篇的词汇衔接在本质上是转喻的,这一观点也反过来证明了转喻是一种重要的思维方式。第五章介绍了本研究的应用——特别是在外语教学上的应用:本研究对英语教学中的阅读、词汇、写作和听力都有一定的指导意义。最后一章在总结全文的基础上,指出了本研究的不足,并指明了今后的研究方向。
Lexical cohesion refers to the linguistic phenomenon that some words which appear in the same text have certain relationship in meaning, including repetition, substitution and collocation (Hu Zhuanglin, 1994:112). Lexical cohesion is an important type of cohesive devices. Its conception first systematically appears in Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasan in 1976. Since then, it has attracted the attention of many scholars. Some scholars try to develop the theory itself; and some others try to apply this theory into different fields, such as foreign language teaching, translation theory and practice, stylistics and so on. In recent years, with the development of cognitive linguistics, people offer a new perspective for the study of lexical cohesion.
In cognitive linguistics, metaphor tends to occupy a prominent position and attracts the attention of researchers, while metonymy is taken to be less important. In recent years, people come to realize the importance of metonymy. Just like metaphor, metonymy is not only a linguistic device but also an inferential process. Metonymy is a special kind of mental mapping. People can speak and think metonymically. Metonymy allows us to focus more specifically on prominent aspects of what is being referred to, such as a person, an object or an event. Metonymic concepts are part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Actually, metonymy is more original, namely, language is metonymic in nature (Radden & Kovecses, 1999). Metonymic thought has an important role in the production and comprehension of discourse. Now that metonymy is an important thinking mode of human beings based on the relations of contiguity and causality, we can turn to it for interpreting lexical cohesion in English texts. Actually, there are few scholars who have done researches on this topic except Al-Sharafi (2004) and Wei Zaijiang (2007).
In this thesis, based on Al-Sharafi (2004) and Wei Zaijiang (2007) and other relevant researches, we try to explain lexical cohesion from the perspective of metonymy. This thesis is comprised of six parts. The first chapter introduces our research topic, significance, methodology and general organization. In the second chapter, as the literature review, we give an account of the research development of lexical cohesion both at home and abroad. In Chapter Three, which serves as the theoretical basis of our research, we first briefly introduce the development history of metonymy, then explain the textual basis of metonymic research. The fourth chapter is our major part, in which we try to explain lexical cohesion in the light of metonymy theories. Our discussion is unfolded in terms of the following aspects: general nouns, synonymy, superordinateness and hyponymy, part-whole relationships. It is proved by our research that the category-and-member metonymy and its metonymic relations by Radden and Kovecses (1999) can be used to explain the relations between general nouns; the textual model of metonymy by Al-Sharafi (2004) can be used to account for synonymy, superordinateness and hyponymy. Al-Sharafi's textual model and Lakoff's theory of ICM can be used to analyze part-whole relationships. Lexical cohesive devices are metonymic relations in nature. This opinion also testifies that metonymy is an important thinking mode. Chapter Five discusses the implications of our research for foreign language teaching. This study sheds light on the teaching of English reading, lexis, writing and listening. The last chapter, as the conclusion, summarizes the whole study, points out its limitations and the directions for future research.
引文
Al-Sharafi, A. G. M. (2004). Textual metonymy-a semiotic approach. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the cross roads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beaugrand, R. de. and W. Dressier. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Brown, G. and G. Yule. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. (1990). A theory of discourse deviation: The application of schema theory to the analysis of literary discourse. Ph.D. thesis. University of Leeds.
Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 335-370.
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Dijk, V. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversation as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panter, A. K. and G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275-289).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Evan, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgn University Press.
Fauconnier. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Panther K-U. & Radden (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gossens, L. (1990). Metonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistics action. Cognitive Linguistics, (1), 323-340.
Gopnik, M. (1979). On differentiating sentence grammars, from text grammar. In J, S. Petofi (ed.). Text vs Sentence (part 2). Hamberg: Buske.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hason, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hoey, M. (1991). Pattern of lexis in text. London: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, R. (1971). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Jakobson, R. and LM. Halle (eds.). Fundamentals of language (pp.70-89). The Hague: Mouton.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous thing: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 1-38.
McCarthy and Carter. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language. Cambridge: CUP.
Norrick, N. R. (1981). Semantic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Ogden, C. A. and Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: A study on the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Panther, A. K. and Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panther, A. K. and Thornburg, L. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (eds.). Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp.205-219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, A. K. and Thornburg, L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. De Metaphorik, (60), 100-112.
Philip, M. (1985). Aspects of text structure: An investigation of the lexical organization of text. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Philip, M. (1989). The lexical structure of text. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Radden & Kovecses. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther and Radden, G. (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ruiz de Mendoza. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.109-132). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stubbs,M.(1983).Discourse analysis:The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ullmann,S.(1962).Semantics:An introduction to the science of meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Warren,B.(2002).An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor.In Dirven,R.and Porings,R.(eds.).Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast(pp.113-130).Mouton de Gruyter.
Winter.E.O.(1979).Replacement as a function of the sentence in context.Forum Linguisticum,95-133.
Winter,E.O.(1982).Towards a contextual grammar of English.London:George Allen and Unwin.
陈忠华,2004,《知识与语篇理解—话语分析认知科学方法》,外语教学与研究出版社。
陈香兰,2005,转喻:从“辞格”到认知的研究回顾,《外语与外语教学》第8期,56-60。
成丽芳、李冠杰,2003,词汇衔接与写作教学,《山西农业大学学报》(社会科学版)第2期,169-171。
董成如,2004,转喻的认知解释,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期,6-9。
何自然,2006,《认知语用学—言语交际与认知》,上海外语教育出版社。
华邵,1996,从符号学角度看转喻,《外语学刊》第4期,9-14。
胡壮麟,1994,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海外语教育出版社。
黄国文,1988,《语篇分析概要》,湖南教育出版社。
李勇忠,2004,《语言转喻的认知阐述》,上海外语教育出版社。
廖秋忠,1986,现代汉语篇章中指同的表达,《中国语文》第2期。
刘辰诞,1999,《篇章语言学》,上海外语教育出版社。
卢卫中、路云,2006,语篇衔接与连贯的认知机制,《外语教学》第1期,13-18。
罗选民、刘琦榕,2003,词汇衔接在小说语篇中的连贯功能,Foreign Language Education 第2期,17-20。
邱蔚,1997,词汇衔接模式在阅读理解中的作用,《福建外语》第4期,31-37。
张德禄、刘汝山,2003,《语篇衔接与连贯理论的发展及应用》,上海外语教育出版社。
张辉、孙明智,2005,概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制,《外语与外语教学》第3期,1-6。
赵艳芳,2001,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社。
魏在江,2007,概念转喻与语篇衔接—各派分歧、理论背景及试验支持,《外国语》第2期,29-36。
朱永生、严世清,2001,《系统功能语言学的多维思考》,上海外语教育出版社。
Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the cross roads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beaugrand, R. de. and W. Dressier. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Brown, G. and G. Yule. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. (1990). A theory of discourse deviation: The application of schema theory to the analysis of literary discourse. Ph.D. thesis. University of Leeds.
Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 335-370.
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Dijk, V. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversation as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panter, A. K. and G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275-289).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Evan, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgn University Press.
Fauconnier. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Panther K-U. & Radden (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gossens, L. (1990). Metonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistics action. Cognitive Linguistics, (1), 323-340.
Gopnik, M. (1979). On differentiating sentence grammars, from text grammar. In J, S. Petofi (ed.). Text vs Sentence (part 2). Hamberg: Buske.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hason, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hoey, M. (1991). Pattern of lexis in text. London: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, R. (1971). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Jakobson, R. and LM. Halle (eds.). Fundamentals of language (pp.70-89). The Hague: Mouton.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous thing: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 1-38.
McCarthy and Carter. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language. Cambridge: CUP.
Norrick, N. R. (1981). Semantic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Ogden, C. A. and Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: A study on the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Panther, A. K. and Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panther, A. K. and Thornburg, L. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (eds.). Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp.205-219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, A. K. and Thornburg, L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. De Metaphorik, (60), 100-112.
Philip, M. (1985). Aspects of text structure: An investigation of the lexical organization of text. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Philip, M. (1989). The lexical structure of text. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Radden & Kovecses. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther and Radden, G. (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ruiz de Mendoza. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.109-132). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stubbs,M.(1983).Discourse analysis:The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ullmann,S.(1962).Semantics:An introduction to the science of meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Warren,B.(2002).An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor.In Dirven,R.and Porings,R.(eds.).Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast(pp.113-130).Mouton de Gruyter.
Winter.E.O.(1979).Replacement as a function of the sentence in context.Forum Linguisticum,95-133.
Winter,E.O.(1982).Towards a contextual grammar of English.London:George Allen and Unwin.
陈忠华,2004,《知识与语篇理解—话语分析认知科学方法》,外语教学与研究出版社。
陈香兰,2005,转喻:从“辞格”到认知的研究回顾,《外语与外语教学》第8期,56-60。
成丽芳、李冠杰,2003,词汇衔接与写作教学,《山西农业大学学报》(社会科学版)第2期,169-171。
董成如,2004,转喻的认知解释,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期,6-9。
何自然,2006,《认知语用学—言语交际与认知》,上海外语教育出版社。
华邵,1996,从符号学角度看转喻,《外语学刊》第4期,9-14。
胡壮麟,1994,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海外语教育出版社。
黄国文,1988,《语篇分析概要》,湖南教育出版社。
李勇忠,2004,《语言转喻的认知阐述》,上海外语教育出版社。
廖秋忠,1986,现代汉语篇章中指同的表达,《中国语文》第2期。
刘辰诞,1999,《篇章语言学》,上海外语教育出版社。
卢卫中、路云,2006,语篇衔接与连贯的认知机制,《外语教学》第1期,13-18。
罗选民、刘琦榕,2003,词汇衔接在小说语篇中的连贯功能,Foreign Language Education 第2期,17-20。
邱蔚,1997,词汇衔接模式在阅读理解中的作用,《福建外语》第4期,31-37。
张德禄、刘汝山,2003,《语篇衔接与连贯理论的发展及应用》,上海外语教育出版社。
张辉、孙明智,2005,概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制,《外语与外语教学》第3期,1-6。
赵艳芳,2001,《认知语言学概论》,上海外语教育出版社。
魏在江,2007,概念转喻与语篇衔接—各派分歧、理论背景及试验支持,《外国语》第2期,29-36。
朱永生、严世清,2001,《系统功能语言学的多维思考》,上海外语教育出版社。