名词性概念汉英词汇表征差异的认知语言学研究
|
摘要
本研究所关注的名词性概念主要涉及我们日常生活中的基本概念,相当于Leech所提出的七种意义中的概念意义。名词性概念词汇表征主要指不同文化背景的语言在词汇层面赋予同一基本名词性概念以俗名的语言现象。在对同一名词性概念进行词汇表征时,不同文化背景的语言之间有着许多共同之处。这主要是由于人类具有基本相同的生理结构以及与基本相似的客观世界进行互动而产生的结果。同时彼此之间也存在许多差异。这些差异及其理据吸引了国内外众多研究者的注意。然而,目前可得到的文献显示,少有研究者以认知语言学为视角对名词性概念汉英表征差异进行系统的探讨。鉴于此,本论文主要从认知语言学的视角对名词性概念汉英表征差异进行较为系统和全面的分析并试图实现以下三个研究目的:(1)对名词性概念汉英词汇表征差异进行较为全面的调查;(2)从认知语言学的角度为这些差异提供一种新的解释;(3)在以上研究结果的基础上提出汉英普通名词的翻译策略。
认知语言学作为一种新兴的语言研究方法,其本质是解释性的。它不仅对语言事实进行描写,而且力图为解释相关语言现象及揭示隐藏在这些语言现象背后的人类认知规律提供具有说服力的方法。作为其主要理论之一的识解理论在本研究中被尝试性地用于解释名词性概念汉英词汇表征的差异。该理论主要包括框架、突显、视角、隐喻和转喻五个识解方式。对差异进行解释之前,本研究在对从三本词典及过往相关研究中收集的约1655个语料进行分析的基础上对这些差异进行了分类:内在差异和外在差异。而其又可进一步被分为7个小类,用大写字母A、B、C和D分别表示为AB/BA, AC/BC, AB/CD, AB/B, A/AB, A’B’/C’D’和A*B*/C*D*。其中,AB/BA型差异主要从视角和框架两方面进行解释;AC/BC型差异主要从突显和视角两方面进行解释;AB/CD型差异主要归因于突显、视角、框架和转喻四种识解方式以及这几种方式之间的相互作用;AB/B和AB/A型差异主要归因于转喻识解方式;A’B’/C’D’和A*B*/C*D*型差异分别是识解方式即隐喻和转喻所致。通过分析得出的结论是:名词性概念汉英词汇表征差异主要是由于同一概念在汉英两种语言中所采取的识解方式不一样而导致的结果。
结合当代翻译研究的主流观点,以上研究结果对表征名词性概念的名词翻译的启示是:译者应力求在目的语中同时实现源语的概念内容和识解方式,如果两者不能兼顾,则舍弃源语的识解方式,采用与目的语一致的识解方式。基于这一基本原则,作者提出了两种具体名词翻译策略,即传承性翻译策略与参照性翻译策略。传承性翻译策略是指源语名词所表征的概念为两种语言所共有且此概念在目的语中也有体现相同识解方式的词汇,翻译时源语名词所表达的概念与体现的识解方式在目的语中同时获得再现。参照性翻译策略则指源语名词所表征的概念为两种语言所有,但源语名词表达的概念在目的语中是以不同识解方式得以表征的,翻译时则采用符合目的语识解方式的词语。
Nominal concepts in question are mainly restricted to the basic concepts in our daily life which are equivalent to the conceptual meaning in Leech’s seven types of meaning. Lexical representation of nominal concept is a linguistic phenomenon that the same nominal concepts are to be commonly designated on the lexical level between languages of different cultures. In these popular designations, languages of different cultures share great commonness because human beings possess the similar physical structures and interact with the similar real world. In a meanwhile, there also exits certain differences. The details and motivations of these differences have drawn the attention of researchers at home and abroad. However, literature available indicates that few of them examine the issue systematically in the case of Chinese and English and from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. This thesis therefore focuses on a relatively systematic and comprehensive analysis of the differences in lexical representation of nominal concepts in Chinese and English (DLRNCCE) from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and attempts to achieve three purposes: (1) to make a comparatively comprehensive investigation into DLRNCCE; (2) to provide a relatively comprehensive explanation for DLRNCCE from the perspective of cognitive linguistics; (3) to explore translation strategies for nominal words between Chinese and English on the basis of research achievements obtained .
As a newly-developed approach to the study of language, cognitive linguistics is explanatory in nature. It not only provides a description of the language facts, but supplies a set of convincing methods for interpreting relevant linguistic phenomena and revealing human cognitive law underlying them. One of its important theories—construal theory, encompassing five major construal means: frame, salience, perspective, metaphor and metonymy—is tentatively adopted as the theoretical framework in this thesis to explain DLRNCCE. Before interpreting the differences, a classification of them has been conducted according to the semantic principle on the basis of analysis of 1655 linguistic data collected from three dictionaries and the previous studies. Two major types of differences are envisaged: intrinsic and extrinsic, which is further divided into seven subtypes. They are represented with the capital letters of A, B, C and D as AB/BA, AC/BC, AB/CD, AB/B, A/AB, A’B’/C’D’and A*B*/C*D*. The AB/BA difference is interpreted mainly from the construal means of perspective and frame; the AC/BC difference is motivated mainly by the construal means of perspective and salience; the AB/CD difference, mainly from the construal means of frame, perspective, salience and metonymy as well as the interactions among these means; the AB/B and A/AB differences, mainly from the construal means of metonymy; the A’B’/C’D’and A*B*/C*D* differences, respectively from metaphor and metonymy. On the basis of analysis above, the conclusion has been made that the differences in lexical representation of nominal concepts in Chinese and English arise mainly due to the diversified means of construal.
In light of the above findings and the mainstream view of contemporary translation studies, the principle for translating nominal words designating nominal concepts is proposed: translator should try to realize both conceptual content and construal means of source nominal word in target language; and if this endeavor fails, s/he should discard the construal means of the source language and adopt the one consistent with that of the target language. According to this basic principle, two translating strategies are thus put forward: inheritance and reference. By inheritance it is meant that if the concept that the source nominal word designates is shared by both languages and has the word embodying the same construal means in the target language, both conceptual content and construal means of the source nominal word are reproduced in the translation. Reference is a translation strategy that if the concept that the source nominal word denotes is shared by both languages but represented by a different construal means in the target language, the word in line with the construal means of the target language is adopted.
认知语言学作为一种新兴的语言研究方法,其本质是解释性的。它不仅对语言事实进行描写,而且力图为解释相关语言现象及揭示隐藏在这些语言现象背后的人类认知规律提供具有说服力的方法。作为其主要理论之一的识解理论在本研究中被尝试性地用于解释名词性概念汉英词汇表征的差异。该理论主要包括框架、突显、视角、隐喻和转喻五个识解方式。对差异进行解释之前,本研究在对从三本词典及过往相关研究中收集的约1655个语料进行分析的基础上对这些差异进行了分类:内在差异和外在差异。而其又可进一步被分为7个小类,用大写字母A、B、C和D分别表示为AB/BA, AC/BC, AB/CD, AB/B, A/AB, A’B’/C’D’和A*B*/C*D*。其中,AB/BA型差异主要从视角和框架两方面进行解释;AC/BC型差异主要从突显和视角两方面进行解释;AB/CD型差异主要归因于突显、视角、框架和转喻四种识解方式以及这几种方式之间的相互作用;AB/B和AB/A型差异主要归因于转喻识解方式;A’B’/C’D’和A*B*/C*D*型差异分别是识解方式即隐喻和转喻所致。通过分析得出的结论是:名词性概念汉英词汇表征差异主要是由于同一概念在汉英两种语言中所采取的识解方式不一样而导致的结果。
结合当代翻译研究的主流观点,以上研究结果对表征名词性概念的名词翻译的启示是:译者应力求在目的语中同时实现源语的概念内容和识解方式,如果两者不能兼顾,则舍弃源语的识解方式,采用与目的语一致的识解方式。基于这一基本原则,作者提出了两种具体名词翻译策略,即传承性翻译策略与参照性翻译策略。传承性翻译策略是指源语名词所表征的概念为两种语言所共有且此概念在目的语中也有体现相同识解方式的词汇,翻译时源语名词所表达的概念与体现的识解方式在目的语中同时获得再现。参照性翻译策略则指源语名词所表征的概念为两种语言所有,但源语名词表达的概念在目的语中是以不同识解方式得以表征的,翻译时则采用符合目的语识解方式的词语。
Nominal concepts in question are mainly restricted to the basic concepts in our daily life which are equivalent to the conceptual meaning in Leech’s seven types of meaning. Lexical representation of nominal concept is a linguistic phenomenon that the same nominal concepts are to be commonly designated on the lexical level between languages of different cultures. In these popular designations, languages of different cultures share great commonness because human beings possess the similar physical structures and interact with the similar real world. In a meanwhile, there also exits certain differences. The details and motivations of these differences have drawn the attention of researchers at home and abroad. However, literature available indicates that few of them examine the issue systematically in the case of Chinese and English and from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. This thesis therefore focuses on a relatively systematic and comprehensive analysis of the differences in lexical representation of nominal concepts in Chinese and English (DLRNCCE) from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and attempts to achieve three purposes: (1) to make a comparatively comprehensive investigation into DLRNCCE; (2) to provide a relatively comprehensive explanation for DLRNCCE from the perspective of cognitive linguistics; (3) to explore translation strategies for nominal words between Chinese and English on the basis of research achievements obtained .
As a newly-developed approach to the study of language, cognitive linguistics is explanatory in nature. It not only provides a description of the language facts, but supplies a set of convincing methods for interpreting relevant linguistic phenomena and revealing human cognitive law underlying them. One of its important theories—construal theory, encompassing five major construal means: frame, salience, perspective, metaphor and metonymy—is tentatively adopted as the theoretical framework in this thesis to explain DLRNCCE. Before interpreting the differences, a classification of them has been conducted according to the semantic principle on the basis of analysis of 1655 linguistic data collected from three dictionaries and the previous studies. Two major types of differences are envisaged: intrinsic and extrinsic, which is further divided into seven subtypes. They are represented with the capital letters of A, B, C and D as AB/BA, AC/BC, AB/CD, AB/B, A/AB, A’B’/C’D’and A*B*/C*D*. The AB/BA difference is interpreted mainly from the construal means of perspective and frame; the AC/BC difference is motivated mainly by the construal means of perspective and salience; the AB/CD difference, mainly from the construal means of frame, perspective, salience and metonymy as well as the interactions among these means; the AB/B and A/AB differences, mainly from the construal means of metonymy; the A’B’/C’D’and A*B*/C*D* differences, respectively from metaphor and metonymy. On the basis of analysis above, the conclusion has been made that the differences in lexical representation of nominal concepts in Chinese and English arise mainly due to the diversified means of construal.
In light of the above findings and the mainstream view of contemporary translation studies, the principle for translating nominal words designating nominal concepts is proposed: translator should try to realize both conceptual content and construal means of source nominal word in target language; and if this endeavor fails, s/he should discard the construal means of the source language and adopt the one consistent with that of the target language. According to this basic principle, two translating strategies are thus put forward: inheritance and reference. By inheritance it is meant that if the concept that the source nominal word designates is shared by both languages and has the word embodying the same construal means in the target language, both conceptual content and construal means of the source nominal word are reproduced in the translation. Reference is a translation strategy that if the concept that the source nominal word denotes is shared by both languages but represented by a different construal means in the target language, the word in line with the construal means of the target language is adopted.
引文
[1] Alinei, M. 1995. Theoretical Aspects of Lexical Motivation [J]. Svenska Landsm?l och Svenskt Folkliv 118,321: 1-10.
[2] Alinei, M. 1997. Principi di teoria motivazionale (iconomia) e di lessicologia motivazionale (iconomia) [A]. In Luisa Mucciante and Tullio Telmon (Eds.), Lessiclogia e Lessicografia : Atti del Convegno della SocietàItaliana di Glottologia [C]. Roma:ⅡCalamo.
[3] Baldinger, K. 1980. Semantic Theory [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Translation of Teoría semántica. Hacia una semántica moderna. Madrid: Ediciones Alcalá.
[4] Blank, A. 1997a. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen [M]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
[5] Blank, A. 1997b. Outlines of a Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation [J]. In Proceeding of the 16th International Congress of Linguistics, Paper No. 0291. Oxford: Pergamon.
[6] Blank, A. 1998d. Kognitive Italienische Wortbildungslehre [J]. Italienische Studien (19): 5-27.
[7] Blank, A. 1999. Co-presence and Succession: Acognitive Typology of Metonymy [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[8] Blank, A. 2001. Words and Concepts in Time: towards Diachronic Cognitive Onomasiology [J]. Metaphorick.de (1): 6-25.
[9] Chen, Yingcong. 2008. A Study on Animal Word Concept Frames in English and Chinese [D]. Hunan Normal University.
[10] Croft, M & Cruse, A. D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Estes & Glucksber. 2000. Interactive Property Attribution in ConceptCombination [J]. Memory & Cognition, 281, 28(1):28-34.
[13] Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental space [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Fillmore, C. 1968. The Case for Case [A]. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. London, etc.: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
[16] Fillmore, C. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[17] Fillmore, C. 1977a. Scenes-and-frames Semantics [A]. In Antonio Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing [C]. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
[18] Fillmore, C. 1977b. The Case for Case Reopened [A]. In P. Cole and J. M. Sadock (Eds), Grammatical Relations [C]. New York: Academic Press.
[19] Fillmore, C. 1982a. Frame Semantics [A]. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin.
[20] Fillmore, C. 1982b. Towards a Descriptive Framework for a Spatial Deixis [A]. In Robert, J. and W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester/New York; John Wiley and Sons.
[21] Fillmore, C. 1985a. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica (6): 222-255.
[22] Fillmore, C. 1985b. Syntactic Instructions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction [A]. In Mary Niepokuj, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[23] Fillmore, C. 1988. The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar [A]. In Shelley Axmaker, Annie, J. and H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[24] Fillmore, C. & B. Atkins. 1992. Towards a Frame-based Lexicon: the Semanticsof Risk and its Neighbors [A]. In Adrienne, L. & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsale/N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
[25] Fisiak, J. 1981. Some Introductory Notes Concerning Contrastive Linguistics [A]. In Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher [C]. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[26] Geeraerts, D. 1983. Reclassifying Semantic Change [J]. Quaderni di semantica (4): 217-240.
[27] Geeraerts, D. 2000. Salience Phenomena in the Lexicon [A]. In L. Albertassi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Approach [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
[28] Grzega, J. 2002. Some Aspects of Modern Diachronic Onomasiology [J]. Liguistics (40): 1021-1045.
[29] Grzega, J. 2002. Some Thoughts on a Cognitive Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation with Special Reference to English [J]. Onomasiology Online (3): 1-29.
[30] Grzega, J. 2004. The Terms for“Flower”from the Alps to the Appennines [J]. Onomasiology Online (5): 140-145.
[31] Grzega, J. 2005. Course Materials for English and Comparitive Onomasiology[J]. Retrieved October 8, 2009, http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ SLF/EngluVglSW/ onon-manual.doc.
[32] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[33] Keller, R. 1994. Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache [M]. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
[34] Kleparski, G. A. & P. Borkowska. 2007. A note on Synonymy: Absolute, Partial and Diachronic [J]. Studia Anglica Resoviensia (4): 217-240.
[35] Koch, P. 1995. Der Beitrag der Prototypentheorie zur Historischen Semantik. Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme [J]. Romanistisches Jahrbuch (46): 27-46.
[36] Koch, P. 1999a. Tree and Fruit: A Cognitive-onoasiological Approach [J]. Studidi Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata (28): 331-347.
[37] Koch, P. 2001. Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie [J]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (121): 7-36.
[38] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[39] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[40] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[41] Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 1) [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[42] Langacker, R. W. 1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 2) [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[43] Langacker, R. W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[44] Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[45] Langacker, R. W. 2000.“Why Mind is Necessary.”[A]. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[46] Lee, D.A. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
[47] Lüdtke, H. 1986. Esquisse d’une théorie du changement langagier [J]. La linguistique (22): 3-46.
[48] Moore, T & C. Carling. 1982. Language Understanding: Towards a Post-Chomskyan Linguistics [M]. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
[49] Newmark , P. 2001. Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[50] Nida, E. A. & R. Taber. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: Brill.
[51] Panther, K and L. Thornberg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[52] Paradis, C. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjective in Spoken British English [A]. Lund Studies in English 92 [C]. Lund: Lund University Press.
[53] Paradis, C. 2001. Adjectives and Boundedness [J]. Cognitive linguistics 12 (1): 47-65.
[54] Paradis, C. 2005. Ontologies and Construals in Lexical Semantics [J]. Aximathes (15): 541-573.
[55] Radden, G & Z. K?vecses. 1999. Towords a theory of metonymy [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[56] Rastier, F. 1991. Sémantique et recherches cognitives [M]. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.
[57] Roey, V. J. 1990. French-English contrastive lexicology: an introduction [M]. Peeters.
[58] Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwel Publisher Led.
[59] Saussure, F. 1966. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Paris: Payot.
[60] Seto, K. 1999. Distinguish metonymy from synecdoche [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[61] ?tekauer, P. 2001. Fundamental Principles of an Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation [J]. Onomosiology Online (2): 1-42.
[62] Tagliavini, C. 1949. Di alcuni denominazioni della (studio di onomasiologia, con speciale riguardo alle lingue camito-semitiche e negro-africane) [J]. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli (n.s.) (3): 341-378.
[63] Talor, J. 1995. Linguistics Categorization [M]. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[64] Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[65] Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science [M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Presss.
[66] Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[67] Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmidt. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[68] Verhagen, A. 2007. Construal and Perspectivization [A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[69] Weijnen, A. 1986. Fleur. Carte Onomasiologique [A]. In Mario Alinei et al. (Eds.), Atlas linguarum Europae (ALE)—Commentaires, vol.1, 2nd fasc [C]. Assen: Van Gorcum.
[70] Yin Xiaomei. 2008. A Study on Plant Word Concept Frames in Chinese and English [D]. Hunan Normal University.
[71] Zauner, A. 1902. Die romanischen Namen K?rperteile. Eine onomasiolotische Studies [D]. University of Erlangen. Published in Romanische Forschungen (1903) 14: 339-530.
[72]巴尔胡达罗夫. 1985.语言与翻译(蔡毅等译)[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[73]白国芳. 2007.英汉动词词化模式及词化程度比较分析[J].平顶山学院学报(3): 100-102.
[74]蔡基刚. 2008.英汉词汇对比研究[M].复旦大学出报社.
[75]曹勇. 2007.英汉词汇理据性差异及其构词体现[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版) (1): 148-150.
[76]陈淑莹,黎昌抱. 2004.英汉新词语的产生途径与构词特点研究[J].四川我外语学院学报(3): 124-128.
[77]陈小慰. 1995.汉译英中的视点转换[J].中国翻译(6): 14-16.
[78]丁金国. 1996.汉英对比研究中理论原则[J].外语教学与研究(3): 15-20.
[79]段东印. 2001汉英构词法趋同观[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (4): 125-127.
[80]范仲英.2003.实用翻译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[81]顾明华. 1988.汉英对应词对比邹议[J].现代外语(1): 56-59.
[82]顾文利. 2008.英汉构词法的对比分析[J].成人高教刊(3): 58-60.
[83]郭建中. 2000.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[A].郭建中(编),文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[84]韩大伟. 2007.“路径”含义的词汇化模式[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版) (3): 155-159.
[85]浩瀚,刘同冈,张华. 2000.英汉互译每日通[M].北京:新世界出版社.
[86]胡爱萍,吴静. 2006.英汉语中N+N复合名词的图式解读[J].语言教学与研究, (2): 66-72.
[87]黄粉保. 2006.‘词化’在汉英翻译中的运用——以《红楼梦》中‘说道’两字的译法为例[J].上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(4): 124-127.
[88]黄伟明. 1999.英汉构词法比较[J].渝州大学学报(社会科学版)(3): 109-112.
[89]黄伟明. 2000.英汉构词理据比较[J].渝州大学学报(社会科学版)(2): 89-91.
[90]贾睿霞. 2001.简析英汉语词汇的差异[J].大同医学专科学校学报(2): 57-58.
[91]李茜. 2004.论英汉植物词语文化内涵[J].怀化学院学报(6): 131-133.
[92]李太志. 2004.对应词的“不对应”及互译“变色”[J].修辞学习(6): 71-72.
[93]李悦. 2003.汉英动物词的文化内涵比较及其翻译[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版) (5): 707-710.
[94]李媛媛. 2006.英汉词的理据对比分析与英语词汇教学[J].新疆石油教育学院学报(2): 66-70.
[95]李振杰. 1990.汉英新词语汇编[Z].北京:北京语言学院出版社.
[96]廖光蓉. 2002.英汉文化植物词对比[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4): 5-9.
[97]凌子惠,刘正光.2008.概念合成限制理论对汉语“抽象N_1+N_2”结构的解释力[J].外语学刊(5): 20-25.
[98]刘宓庆. 1980.试论英汉词义的差异[J].外国语(1): 16-20.
[99]刘宓庆. 2005.新编当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[100]刘润清. 2005.新编语言学教程[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
[101]刘正光. 2003.关于N+N概念合成名词的认知研究[J].外语与外语教学(11): 1-5.
[102]刘正光,刘润清. 2004. N+N概念合成名词的认知发生机制[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报)(1): 26-32.
[103]陆佳英,肖运初. 2006.新词概念合成的认知语义学研究[J].外语研究(5): 5-8.
[104]罗思明. 2007.英汉“缓步”类动词的语义成分及词化模式分析[J].外语研究(1): 12-16.
[105]罗思明,徐海,王文斌. 2007.当代词汇化研究综合考察[J].现代外语(季刊)(4): 414-421.
[106]吕叔湘, 1990,题词.载杨自俭、李瑞华(主编),《英汉对比研究论文集》[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[107]沐莘. 1986.浅淡英汉多义词的比较[J].外国语(6): 19-24.
[108]庞林林.1995.略谈英汉同义词对应词的文化差异[J].山东外语教学(1): 5-17.
[109]钱敏,黄淑春. 1998.英汉分类图解辞典[Z].广东:世界图书出版公司.
[110]邱述德. 1989.英汉词语意义的非完全对应关系[J].外语教学与研究(1): 40-47.
[111]邵志洪. 1996.英汉词汇语义容量比较[J].外语与外语教学(2): 15-20.
[112]邵志洪. 2000.英汉词化过程对比研究——从英语复合新词谈起[J].外语与外语教学(7): 11-21.
[113]尚秀叶. 2007.中英语言中植物词语的文化内涵比较[J].中北大学学报(社会科学版) (3): 30-32.
[114]沈越. 2007.英汉词语命名中的认知心理对比[J].安徽文学(7): 112-113.
[115]束定芳. 2008.认知语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[116]司显柱,曾剑平. 2006.汉译英教程[M].上海:东华大学出版社.
[117]孙海晨. 1998.英语名词性词组在汉译英中的运用[J].中国翻译(5): 16-18.
[118]孙致礼. 2000.翻译《傲慢与偏见》(简·奥斯丁著).北京:译林出版社.
[119]谭载喜. 1982.翻译中语义对比试析[A].杨自俭、李瑞华(主编),英汉对比研究论文集[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1990.
[120]谭业升. 2001.从语义认知角度看翻译技巧[J].上海科技翻译(2): 5-10.
[121]谭载喜. 1999.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[122]田芬. 2008.汉英词语的理据对比例析[J] .岱宗学刊(2): 107-108.
[123]万惠洲. 1985.汉英构词法的比较与教学[J].外语教学与研究(2): 107-118.
[124]王爱国. 1997.英汉构词法比较——《现代英语词汇学概论》及《现代汉语》读后感[J].中国民航学院学报(2): 59-64.
[125]王大伟,魏清光. 2005.汉英翻译技巧教学与研究[M].中国对外翻译公司.
[126]王东风. 2005.再谈意义与翻译[J].中国外语(1): 71-78.
[127]王红梅. 2008.论合成空间理论对新名词的认知解释[J].湘潭师范学院学报(社会科学版)(5): 221-222.
[128]王继同. 2005.新编汉英分类词典[Z].杭州:浙江大学出版社.
[129]王劼. 2007.英汉语名词+名词复合结构的对比研究[D].苏州大学.
[130]王金安. 2001.英汉翻译中的词义对比分析[J].西安外国语学院学报(1): 40-42.
[131]王宁. 2000.走向中西比较文化语境下的翻译研究[A].郭建中编:文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[132]王文斌,周慈波. 2004.英汉“看”类动词的语义及词化对比分析[J].外语教学与研究(外国语双月刊)(6): 412-419.
[133]王寅. 2005.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[134]王寅. 2006.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[135]文旭. 1999.国外认知语言学研究纵观[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报) (1): 34-40.
[136]吴越民. 2004.英汉颜色词的语义联想及其语用比较[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(2): 23-27.
[137]肖坤学. 2005.试论词汇层面翻译的认知取向[J].外语与外语教学(5): 46-49.
[138]肖坤学. 2006.句子层面翻译的认知语言学视角[J].外语研究(1): 66-70.
[139]肖坤学. 2009.认知语言学语境下被动句英译汉的原则与方法[J].外语研究(1): 17-22.
[140]萧立明. 2001.新译学论稿[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[141]严辰松. 2005.英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报) (1): 23-29.
[142]杨元刚,张安德. 2002.英汉植物词文化联想意义对比分析[J].语言教学与研究(4): 74-80.
[143]姚立萍. 2006.英汉动物词汇文化内涵的跨文化对比[D].河北师范大学.
[144]姚乃强,贺季萱. 1982.汉英构词法异同刍议[J].解放军外国语学院学报(3): 2-27.
[145]张晗. 2006.英汉构词法对比研究[A].福建省外国语文学会2006年年会暨学术研讨会论文集(下).
[146]张辉,王少琳. 1999.认知语义学评述[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4): 4-8.
[147]张辉,李佐文. 2001.从“red pencil”和“fake guns”谈起——形名组合的认知语义学研究[J].外语研究(2): 36-40.
[148]张红. 2000.英汉构词法比较及语义对比分析[J].成都气象学院学报(2): 177-185.
[149]张科峰. 2006.英汉词法若干差异分析[J].开封大学学报(4): 60-62.
[150]张逵. 1994.试论英汉词的象征意义[J].山西师大学报(1): 87-90.
[151]张培基. 1983.英汉翻译教程·绪论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[152]张曼. 2007.从词义类别看英汉词义之异同[J].山东外语教学(6): 24-27.
[153]章振邦. 1999.新编英语语法教程[M].上海外语教育出版社(4).
[154]赵艳芳. 2000.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[155]周启强. 2001.当代汉英构词手段的共同特征[J].外语与外语教学(5): 17-19.
[2] Alinei, M. 1997. Principi di teoria motivazionale (iconomia) e di lessicologia motivazionale (iconomia) [A]. In Luisa Mucciante and Tullio Telmon (Eds.), Lessiclogia e Lessicografia : Atti del Convegno della SocietàItaliana di Glottologia [C]. Roma:ⅡCalamo.
[3] Baldinger, K. 1980. Semantic Theory [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Translation of Teoría semántica. Hacia una semántica moderna. Madrid: Ediciones Alcalá.
[4] Blank, A. 1997a. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen [M]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
[5] Blank, A. 1997b. Outlines of a Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation [J]. In Proceeding of the 16th International Congress of Linguistics, Paper No. 0291. Oxford: Pergamon.
[6] Blank, A. 1998d. Kognitive Italienische Wortbildungslehre [J]. Italienische Studien (19): 5-27.
[7] Blank, A. 1999. Co-presence and Succession: Acognitive Typology of Metonymy [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[8] Blank, A. 2001. Words and Concepts in Time: towards Diachronic Cognitive Onomasiology [J]. Metaphorick.de (1): 6-25.
[9] Chen, Yingcong. 2008. A Study on Animal Word Concept Frames in English and Chinese [D]. Hunan Normal University.
[10] Croft, M & Cruse, A. D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Estes & Glucksber. 2000. Interactive Property Attribution in ConceptCombination [J]. Memory & Cognition, 281, 28(1):28-34.
[13] Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental space [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Fillmore, C. 1968. The Case for Case [A]. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. London, etc.: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
[16] Fillmore, C. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[17] Fillmore, C. 1977a. Scenes-and-frames Semantics [A]. In Antonio Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing [C]. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
[18] Fillmore, C. 1977b. The Case for Case Reopened [A]. In P. Cole and J. M. Sadock (Eds), Grammatical Relations [C]. New York: Academic Press.
[19] Fillmore, C. 1982a. Frame Semantics [A]. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin.
[20] Fillmore, C. 1982b. Towards a Descriptive Framework for a Spatial Deixis [A]. In Robert, J. and W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester/New York; John Wiley and Sons.
[21] Fillmore, C. 1985a. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica (6): 222-255.
[22] Fillmore, C. 1985b. Syntactic Instructions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction [A]. In Mary Niepokuj, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[23] Fillmore, C. 1988. The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar [A]. In Shelley Axmaker, Annie, J. and H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
[24] Fillmore, C. & B. Atkins. 1992. Towards a Frame-based Lexicon: the Semanticsof Risk and its Neighbors [A]. In Adrienne, L. & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization [C]. Hillsale/N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
[25] Fisiak, J. 1981. Some Introductory Notes Concerning Contrastive Linguistics [A]. In Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher [C]. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[26] Geeraerts, D. 1983. Reclassifying Semantic Change [J]. Quaderni di semantica (4): 217-240.
[27] Geeraerts, D. 2000. Salience Phenomena in the Lexicon [A]. In L. Albertassi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Approach [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
[28] Grzega, J. 2002. Some Aspects of Modern Diachronic Onomasiology [J]. Liguistics (40): 1021-1045.
[29] Grzega, J. 2002. Some Thoughts on a Cognitive Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation with Special Reference to English [J]. Onomasiology Online (3): 1-29.
[30] Grzega, J. 2004. The Terms for“Flower”from the Alps to the Appennines [J]. Onomasiology Online (5): 140-145.
[31] Grzega, J. 2005. Course Materials for English and Comparitive Onomasiology[J]. Retrieved October 8, 2009, http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ SLF/EngluVglSW/ onon-manual.doc.
[32] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[33] Keller, R. 1994. Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache [M]. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
[34] Kleparski, G. A. & P. Borkowska. 2007. A note on Synonymy: Absolute, Partial and Diachronic [J]. Studia Anglica Resoviensia (4): 217-240.
[35] Koch, P. 1995. Der Beitrag der Prototypentheorie zur Historischen Semantik. Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme [J]. Romanistisches Jahrbuch (46): 27-46.
[36] Koch, P. 1999a. Tree and Fruit: A Cognitive-onoasiological Approach [J]. Studidi Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata (28): 331-347.
[37] Koch, P. 2001. Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie [J]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (121): 7-36.
[38] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[39] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[40] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh [M]. New York: Basic Books.
[41] Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 1) [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[42] Langacker, R. W. 1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 2) [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[43] Langacker, R. W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[44] Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[45] Langacker, R. W. 2000.“Why Mind is Necessary.”[A]. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[46] Lee, D.A. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
[47] Lüdtke, H. 1986. Esquisse d’une théorie du changement langagier [J]. La linguistique (22): 3-46.
[48] Moore, T & C. Carling. 1982. Language Understanding: Towards a Post-Chomskyan Linguistics [M]. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
[49] Newmark , P. 2001. Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[50] Nida, E. A. & R. Taber. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: Brill.
[51] Panther, K and L. Thornberg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[52] Paradis, C. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjective in Spoken British English [A]. Lund Studies in English 92 [C]. Lund: Lund University Press.
[53] Paradis, C. 2001. Adjectives and Boundedness [J]. Cognitive linguistics 12 (1): 47-65.
[54] Paradis, C. 2005. Ontologies and Construals in Lexical Semantics [J]. Aximathes (15): 541-573.
[55] Radden, G & Z. K?vecses. 1999. Towords a theory of metonymy [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[56] Rastier, F. 1991. Sémantique et recherches cognitives [M]. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.
[57] Roey, V. J. 1990. French-English contrastive lexicology: an introduction [M]. Peeters.
[58] Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwel Publisher Led.
[59] Saussure, F. 1966. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Paris: Payot.
[60] Seto, K. 1999. Distinguish metonymy from synecdoche [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden(eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[61] ?tekauer, P. 2001. Fundamental Principles of an Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation [J]. Onomosiology Online (2): 1-42.
[62] Tagliavini, C. 1949. Di alcuni denominazioni della
[63] Talor, J. 1995. Linguistics Categorization [M]. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[64] Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[65] Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science [M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Presss.
[66] Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[67] Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmidt. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[68] Verhagen, A. 2007. Construal and Perspectivization [A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[69] Weijnen, A. 1986. Fleur. Carte Onomasiologique [A]. In Mario Alinei et al. (Eds.), Atlas linguarum Europae (ALE)—Commentaires, vol.1, 2nd fasc [C]. Assen: Van Gorcum.
[70] Yin Xiaomei. 2008. A Study on Plant Word Concept Frames in Chinese and English [D]. Hunan Normal University.
[71] Zauner, A. 1902. Die romanischen Namen K?rperteile. Eine onomasiolotische Studies [D]. University of Erlangen. Published in Romanische Forschungen (1903) 14: 339-530.
[72]巴尔胡达罗夫. 1985.语言与翻译(蔡毅等译)[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[73]白国芳. 2007.英汉动词词化模式及词化程度比较分析[J].平顶山学院学报(3): 100-102.
[74]蔡基刚. 2008.英汉词汇对比研究[M].复旦大学出报社.
[75]曹勇. 2007.英汉词汇理据性差异及其构词体现[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版) (1): 148-150.
[76]陈淑莹,黎昌抱. 2004.英汉新词语的产生途径与构词特点研究[J].四川我外语学院学报(3): 124-128.
[77]陈小慰. 1995.汉译英中的视点转换[J].中国翻译(6): 14-16.
[78]丁金国. 1996.汉英对比研究中理论原则[J].外语教学与研究(3): 15-20.
[79]段东印. 2001汉英构词法趋同观[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (4): 125-127.
[80]范仲英.2003.实用翻译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[81]顾明华. 1988.汉英对应词对比邹议[J].现代外语(1): 56-59.
[82]顾文利. 2008.英汉构词法的对比分析[J].成人高教刊(3): 58-60.
[83]郭建中. 2000.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[A].郭建中(编),文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[84]韩大伟. 2007.“路径”含义的词汇化模式[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版) (3): 155-159.
[85]浩瀚,刘同冈,张华. 2000.英汉互译每日通[M].北京:新世界出版社.
[86]胡爱萍,吴静. 2006.英汉语中N+N复合名词的图式解读[J].语言教学与研究, (2): 66-72.
[87]黄粉保. 2006.‘词化’在汉英翻译中的运用——以《红楼梦》中‘说道’两字的译法为例[J].上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(4): 124-127.
[88]黄伟明. 1999.英汉构词法比较[J].渝州大学学报(社会科学版)(3): 109-112.
[89]黄伟明. 2000.英汉构词理据比较[J].渝州大学学报(社会科学版)(2): 89-91.
[90]贾睿霞. 2001.简析英汉语词汇的差异[J].大同医学专科学校学报(2): 57-58.
[91]李茜. 2004.论英汉植物词语文化内涵[J].怀化学院学报(6): 131-133.
[92]李太志. 2004.对应词的“不对应”及互译“变色”[J].修辞学习(6): 71-72.
[93]李悦. 2003.汉英动物词的文化内涵比较及其翻译[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版) (5): 707-710.
[94]李媛媛. 2006.英汉词的理据对比分析与英语词汇教学[J].新疆石油教育学院学报(2): 66-70.
[95]李振杰. 1990.汉英新词语汇编[Z].北京:北京语言学院出版社.
[96]廖光蓉. 2002.英汉文化植物词对比[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4): 5-9.
[97]凌子惠,刘正光.2008.概念合成限制理论对汉语“抽象N_1+N_2”结构的解释力[J].外语学刊(5): 20-25.
[98]刘宓庆. 1980.试论英汉词义的差异[J].外国语(1): 16-20.
[99]刘宓庆. 2005.新编当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[100]刘润清. 2005.新编语言学教程[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
[101]刘正光. 2003.关于N+N概念合成名词的认知研究[J].外语与外语教学(11): 1-5.
[102]刘正光,刘润清. 2004. N+N概念合成名词的认知发生机制[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报)(1): 26-32.
[103]陆佳英,肖运初. 2006.新词概念合成的认知语义学研究[J].外语研究(5): 5-8.
[104]罗思明. 2007.英汉“缓步”类动词的语义成分及词化模式分析[J].外语研究(1): 12-16.
[105]罗思明,徐海,王文斌. 2007.当代词汇化研究综合考察[J].现代外语(季刊)(4): 414-421.
[106]吕叔湘, 1990,题词.载杨自俭、李瑞华(主编),《英汉对比研究论文集》[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[107]沐莘. 1986.浅淡英汉多义词的比较[J].外国语(6): 19-24.
[108]庞林林.1995.略谈英汉同义词对应词的文化差异[J].山东外语教学(1): 5-17.
[109]钱敏,黄淑春. 1998.英汉分类图解辞典[Z].广东:世界图书出版公司.
[110]邱述德. 1989.英汉词语意义的非完全对应关系[J].外语教学与研究(1): 40-47.
[111]邵志洪. 1996.英汉词汇语义容量比较[J].外语与外语教学(2): 15-20.
[112]邵志洪. 2000.英汉词化过程对比研究——从英语复合新词谈起[J].外语与外语教学(7): 11-21.
[113]尚秀叶. 2007.中英语言中植物词语的文化内涵比较[J].中北大学学报(社会科学版) (3): 30-32.
[114]沈越. 2007.英汉词语命名中的认知心理对比[J].安徽文学(7): 112-113.
[115]束定芳. 2008.认知语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[116]司显柱,曾剑平. 2006.汉译英教程[M].上海:东华大学出版社.
[117]孙海晨. 1998.英语名词性词组在汉译英中的运用[J].中国翻译(5): 16-18.
[118]孙致礼. 2000.翻译《傲慢与偏见》(简·奥斯丁著).北京:译林出版社.
[119]谭载喜. 1982.翻译中语义对比试析[A].杨自俭、李瑞华(主编),英汉对比研究论文集[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1990.
[120]谭业升. 2001.从语义认知角度看翻译技巧[J].上海科技翻译(2): 5-10.
[121]谭载喜. 1999.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[122]田芬. 2008.汉英词语的理据对比例析[J] .岱宗学刊(2): 107-108.
[123]万惠洲. 1985.汉英构词法的比较与教学[J].外语教学与研究(2): 107-118.
[124]王爱国. 1997.英汉构词法比较——《现代英语词汇学概论》及《现代汉语》读后感[J].中国民航学院学报(2): 59-64.
[125]王大伟,魏清光. 2005.汉英翻译技巧教学与研究[M].中国对外翻译公司.
[126]王东风. 2005.再谈意义与翻译[J].中国外语(1): 71-78.
[127]王红梅. 2008.论合成空间理论对新名词的认知解释[J].湘潭师范学院学报(社会科学版)(5): 221-222.
[128]王继同. 2005.新编汉英分类词典[Z].杭州:浙江大学出版社.
[129]王劼. 2007.英汉语名词+名词复合结构的对比研究[D].苏州大学.
[130]王金安. 2001.英汉翻译中的词义对比分析[J].西安外国语学院学报(1): 40-42.
[131]王宁. 2000.走向中西比较文化语境下的翻译研究[A].郭建中编:文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[132]王文斌,周慈波. 2004.英汉“看”类动词的语义及词化对比分析[J].外语教学与研究(外国语双月刊)(6): 412-419.
[133]王寅. 2005.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[134]王寅. 2006.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[135]文旭. 1999.国外认知语言学研究纵观[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报) (1): 34-40.
[136]吴越民. 2004.英汉颜色词的语义联想及其语用比较[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(2): 23-27.
[137]肖坤学. 2005.试论词汇层面翻译的认知取向[J].外语与外语教学(5): 46-49.
[138]肖坤学. 2006.句子层面翻译的认知语言学视角[J].外语研究(1): 66-70.
[139]肖坤学. 2009.认知语言学语境下被动句英译汉的原则与方法[J].外语研究(1): 17-22.
[140]萧立明. 2001.新译学论稿[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
[141]严辰松. 2005.英汉语表达“实现”意义的词汇化模式[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报) (1): 23-29.
[142]杨元刚,张安德. 2002.英汉植物词文化联想意义对比分析[J].语言教学与研究(4): 74-80.
[143]姚立萍. 2006.英汉动物词汇文化内涵的跨文化对比[D].河北师范大学.
[144]姚乃强,贺季萱. 1982.汉英构词法异同刍议[J].解放军外国语学院学报(3): 2-27.
[145]张晗. 2006.英汉构词法对比研究[A].福建省外国语文学会2006年年会暨学术研讨会论文集(下).
[146]张辉,王少琳. 1999.认知语义学评述[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4): 4-8.
[147]张辉,李佐文. 2001.从“red pencil”和“fake guns”谈起——形名组合的认知语义学研究[J].外语研究(2): 36-40.
[148]张红. 2000.英汉构词法比较及语义对比分析[J].成都气象学院学报(2): 177-185.
[149]张科峰. 2006.英汉词法若干差异分析[J].开封大学学报(4): 60-62.
[150]张逵. 1994.试论英汉词的象征意义[J].山西师大学报(1): 87-90.
[151]张培基. 1983.英汉翻译教程·绪论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[152]张曼. 2007.从词义类别看英汉词义之异同[J].山东外语教学(6): 24-27.
[153]章振邦. 1999.新编英语语法教程[M].上海外语教育出版社(4).
[154]赵艳芳. 2000.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[155]周启强. 2001.当代汉英构词手段的共同特征[J].外语与外语教学(5): 17-19.