概念隐喻与语篇分析
摘要
隐喻是一种普遍的现象,我们的生活中充满了隐喻。隐喻受到越来越多的关注,人们已经从各种不同的角度对其进行了研究。传统观点认为,隐喻是一种修辞手段。随着莱考夫和约翰逊的著作《我们赖以生存的隐喻》一书的问世,隐喻不再被视为一种单纯的语言现象,而是被视为一种思维方式被学习。隐喻是一种认知机制,以自己的规则促成人们概念世界的构筑。
近年来,随着认知语言学的发展,隐喻研究从单一的语言学平台转移到了以认知为基础的平台上。在认知语言学观点中的隐喻主要指概念隐喻。认知方法拓宽了隐喻研究的范围。许多学者已经成功地在修辞、词汇、句法等层面上对隐喻进行了研究,但大多数学者忽视了隐喻在语篇层面上的研究。过去几年,越来越多的人开始注意到概念隐喻和语篇的密切关系并对此做了很多研究。概念隐喻在语篇中大量存在,而且有不可替代的作用。
除引言与结论外,本分共分四章。引言简单介绍了概念隐喻的重要作用和论文的结构。第一章回顾了传统观点中的隐喻,阐述了隐喻的本质及运行机制。第二章重点讨论了概念隐喻。分别介绍了概念隐喻的概念、体验基础、分类、特点和基本作用。第三章重点介绍了语篇分析中的两个重要概念“衔接”与“连贯”以及二者之间的关系。第四章是本文的核心,文章首先分析了隐喻特征与语篇连贯之间密切的关系。概念隐喻的特征对语篇的连贯有着重要的作用。概念隐喻认知特征的映射性和互动性、语义特征的系统性与延伸性、语用特征的意图性与协商性都有助于语篇的组织和连贯。此外,连贯性也贯穿于单个隐喻以及多个隐喻中。概念隐喻的语篇功能也不可忽视,它可以使语篇生动、简练、客观、准确。衔接也是语篇分析的一个重要因素,概念隐喻的使用可以保证语篇的衔接。最后是文章的结论,对论文进行了简单的总结,提出了文章的不足和今后的研究方向。
Metaphor is pervasive in our life. It has drawn much attention from scholars both at home and abroad and has been studied from various perspectives. Metaphor had traditionally been considered an elegant rhetorical device. Since the publication of Lakoff and Johnson’s work Metaphors We Live By, metaphor is no longer taken as a matter of language but a kind of thought. It is a cognitive mechanism that helps people to construct a conceptual world with its own principles.
In recent years, with the development of cognitive linguistics, the focus of metaphor study has been shifted from a strictly linguistic plane to a cognitive-based stance. Cognitive linguistics has broadened the scope of metaphor study and the metaphors in it are called conceptual metaphors. Although much research on metaphor has been done at the rhetorical, lexical and syntactical levels, the study of metaphor at discourse level has been neglected by many scholars. In the past few years, more and more scholars began to pay attention to the relationship between conceptual metaphor and discourse.
This thesis consists of four chapters besides the introduction and conclusion. The introduction is about the significance of conceptual metaphor and the organization of the thesis. Chapter one introduces the traditional views as well as the nature and working mechanism of metaphor. Chapter two discusses conceptual metaphor in detail. The definition, experiential basis, classification, features as well as the basic functions of conceptual metaphor are presented. Chapter three touches upon the concept of coherence and cohesion and their relationship. Chapter four is the core of the thesis. It points out that conceptual metaphors exist almost everywhere in discourse. Conceptual metaphors play an irreplaceable role in achieving the coherence of a discourse. The mapping and interactivity of cognitive features, the systematicity and extensibility of semantic features, the intentionality and negotiability of pragmatic features are favorable to discourse-organizing and discourse coherence. Besides, coherence may exist within a single conceptual metaphor or between two conceptual metaphors. The discourse functions of conceptual metaphor should not be neglected as it can make a discourse vivid, concise, objective and precise. Cohesion is an important factor of discourse analysis and conceptual metaphor in discourse can help to guarantee discourse cohesion. The last part is the conclusion of the thesis, which points out the limitations of the study and the suggestions for further study.
近年来,随着认知语言学的发展,隐喻研究从单一的语言学平台转移到了以认知为基础的平台上。在认知语言学观点中的隐喻主要指概念隐喻。认知方法拓宽了隐喻研究的范围。许多学者已经成功地在修辞、词汇、句法等层面上对隐喻进行了研究,但大多数学者忽视了隐喻在语篇层面上的研究。过去几年,越来越多的人开始注意到概念隐喻和语篇的密切关系并对此做了很多研究。概念隐喻在语篇中大量存在,而且有不可替代的作用。
除引言与结论外,本分共分四章。引言简单介绍了概念隐喻的重要作用和论文的结构。第一章回顾了传统观点中的隐喻,阐述了隐喻的本质及运行机制。第二章重点讨论了概念隐喻。分别介绍了概念隐喻的概念、体验基础、分类、特点和基本作用。第三章重点介绍了语篇分析中的两个重要概念“衔接”与“连贯”以及二者之间的关系。第四章是本文的核心,文章首先分析了隐喻特征与语篇连贯之间密切的关系。概念隐喻的特征对语篇的连贯有着重要的作用。概念隐喻认知特征的映射性和互动性、语义特征的系统性与延伸性、语用特征的意图性与协商性都有助于语篇的组织和连贯。此外,连贯性也贯穿于单个隐喻以及多个隐喻中。概念隐喻的语篇功能也不可忽视,它可以使语篇生动、简练、客观、准确。衔接也是语篇分析的一个重要因素,概念隐喻的使用可以保证语篇的衔接。最后是文章的结论,对论文进行了简单的总结,提出了文章的不足和今后的研究方向。
Metaphor is pervasive in our life. It has drawn much attention from scholars both at home and abroad and has been studied from various perspectives. Metaphor had traditionally been considered an elegant rhetorical device. Since the publication of Lakoff and Johnson’s work Metaphors We Live By, metaphor is no longer taken as a matter of language but a kind of thought. It is a cognitive mechanism that helps people to construct a conceptual world with its own principles.
In recent years, with the development of cognitive linguistics, the focus of metaphor study has been shifted from a strictly linguistic plane to a cognitive-based stance. Cognitive linguistics has broadened the scope of metaphor study and the metaphors in it are called conceptual metaphors. Although much research on metaphor has been done at the rhetorical, lexical and syntactical levels, the study of metaphor at discourse level has been neglected by many scholars. In the past few years, more and more scholars began to pay attention to the relationship between conceptual metaphor and discourse.
This thesis consists of four chapters besides the introduction and conclusion. The introduction is about the significance of conceptual metaphor and the organization of the thesis. Chapter one introduces the traditional views as well as the nature and working mechanism of metaphor. Chapter two discusses conceptual metaphor in detail. The definition, experiential basis, classification, features as well as the basic functions of conceptual metaphor are presented. Chapter three touches upon the concept of coherence and cohesion and their relationship. Chapter four is the core of the thesis. It points out that conceptual metaphors exist almost everywhere in discourse. Conceptual metaphors play an irreplaceable role in achieving the coherence of a discourse. The mapping and interactivity of cognitive features, the systematicity and extensibility of semantic features, the intentionality and negotiability of pragmatic features are favorable to discourse-organizing and discourse coherence. Besides, coherence may exist within a single conceptual metaphor or between two conceptual metaphors. The discourse functions of conceptual metaphor should not be neglected as it can make a discourse vivid, concise, objective and precise. Cohesion is an important factor of discourse analysis and conceptual metaphor in discourse can help to guarantee discourse cohesion. The last part is the conclusion of the thesis, which points out the limitations of the study and the suggestions for further study.
引文
[1] Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics [M]. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.
[2] Aristotle. Poetics [M]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1996.
[3] Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore Press, 1991.
[4] Berg, J. Metaphor, Meaning and Interpretation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1988 (12): 695-709.
[5] Bizzell, P. and B. Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition Readings from Classical Times to the Present [M]. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Matin’s Press, 1990.
[6] Black. Models and Metaphors [M]. Ithaca: Comell University Press, 1962.
[7] Black, ed. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 19-41.
[8] Brown, G. and G. Yule. Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[9] Cabaliero, R. Metaphor and Genre: The Presence and Role of Metaphor in the Building Review [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2003 (24): 145-167.
[10] Cameron, Low, ed. Researching and Applying Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[11] Cameron, L. Metaphor in Educational Discourse [M]. London and New York: Continuum, 2002.
[12] Carrel, P.L. Interactive Approach to L2 Reading [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[13] Chafe, W. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing [M]. Chicago: Chicago Universtiy Press, 1994.
[14] Connor, U. Constrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[15] Cook, G. Language Teaching Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
[16] Cooper, D. E. Metaphor [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
[17] Cormac, E. R. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1985.
[18] Culler, J. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Destruction [Z]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981.
[19] Czarniawska, B. Metaphors as Enemies of Organizing, or the Advantages of a Flat Discourse [J]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004 (166): 45-65.
[20] Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London: PinterPublishers Ltd, 1994.
[21] Elgin, C. Creation as Reconfiguration: Art in the Advancement of Science [J]. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2002 (16): 14-25.
[22] Faunconnier, G. Mapping in Thought and Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
[23] Fimmelman, J. and H. Krantz. Reading and Study Skills: A Rhetorical Approach [M]. New York: Macmillian, 1982.
[24] Forceville, C. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities [J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2004 (1): 83-89.
[25] Fogelin, R. J. Figuratively Speaking [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
[26] Freeman, M. H. Metaphor Making Meaning: Dickson’s Conceptual Universe [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1995 (24): 643-666.
[27] Gibbs, R. W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought and Understanding [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[28] Givon, T. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
[29] Goatly, A. The Language of Metaphor [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
[30] Goodman, N. Language of Art [M]. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976.
[31] Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[32] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold Pty Ltd, 1985.
[33] Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[34] Halliday, M. A. K. Language and Knowledge: The‘Unpacking’of Text [Z]. National University of Sigapore, 1996.
[35] Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Edward Arnold Limited, 1978.
[36] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[37] Johnstone, B. Discourse Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
[38] Kintch, W. and A. R. Bowles. Metaphor and Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand? [J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2002 (4): 249-262.
[39] Kittay, E. F. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
[40] K?vecses, Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction [M]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2002.
[41] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[42] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[43] Lakoff, G. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1990 (1): 39-74.
[44] Langacker, R. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[45] Leezenberg, M. Contexts of Metaphor [M]. London, New York, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2001.
[46] Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[47] Martin, J. R. Text: System and Structure [Z]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co, 1992.
[48] Martin, J. R. English Text-System and Structure [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
[49] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[50] Mooij, J. J. A. A Study of Metaphor [M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.
[51] Ortony, A, ed. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[52] Putnam, H. Reason, Truth and History [Z]. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981.
[53] Reddy, M. The Conduit Metaphor in Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[54] Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.
[55] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.
[56] Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
[57] Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[58] Thompson, G. Introducing Fractional Grammar [Z]. Edward Arnold Limited, 1996.
[59] Turner, M. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science [M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
[60] Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[61] Van Dijk, T. A, ed. Discourse and Dialogue [A]. Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C], Vol 3. London: Academic Press, 1985.
[62]陈道明.当代隐喻理论若干问题探讨[J].外语与外语教学,2004 (8): 4-7.
[63]陈忠华,刘心全,杨春苑.知识与语篇理解:话语分析认知科学方法论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
[64]程琪龙.语言认知和隐喻[J].外国语,2002 (1):12-15.
[65]范文芳.隐喻理论探究[J].山东外语教学,1997 (1).
[66]范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京:北京教学与研究出版社,2000.
[67]冯晓虎.隐喻:思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2004.
[68]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[69]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
[70]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[71]胡壮麟.语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1996 (4).
[72]黄国文.语篇分析概要[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988.
[73]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[74]刘振前.隐喻的范畴化过程和隐喻过程[J].四川外语学院学报,1999 (4).
[75]苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].外国语,1998 (4):44-49.
[76]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[77]束定芳.论隐喻的本质及语义特征[J].外国语,1998 (6).
[78]文旭.概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性[J].外语学刊,2003 (3):1-7.
[79]严世清.隐喻论[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,2000.
[80]尹辉.论隐喻的认知本质及对英语教学的启示[J].工会论坛,2002 (2).
[81]张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语,1999 (6).
[82]张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究,2000 (2).
[83]张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度[J].外语与外语教学,2001 (1).
[84]赵艳芳.认知语言学理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
[85]朱永生.衔接理论的发展和完善[J].外国语,1995 (3).
[2] Aristotle. Poetics [M]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1996.
[3] Aristotle. Rhetoric [M]. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore Press, 1991.
[4] Berg, J. Metaphor, Meaning and Interpretation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1988 (12): 695-709.
[5] Bizzell, P. and B. Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition Readings from Classical Times to the Present [M]. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Matin’s Press, 1990.
[6] Black. Models and Metaphors [M]. Ithaca: Comell University Press, 1962.
[7] Black, ed. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 19-41.
[8] Brown, G. and G. Yule. Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[9] Cabaliero, R. Metaphor and Genre: The Presence and Role of Metaphor in the Building Review [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2003 (24): 145-167.
[10] Cameron, Low, ed. Researching and Applying Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[11] Cameron, L. Metaphor in Educational Discourse [M]. London and New York: Continuum, 2002.
[12] Carrel, P.L. Interactive Approach to L2 Reading [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[13] Chafe, W. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing [M]. Chicago: Chicago Universtiy Press, 1994.
[14] Connor, U. Constrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[15] Cook, G. Language Teaching Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
[16] Cooper, D. E. Metaphor [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
[17] Cormac, E. R. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1985.
[18] Culler, J. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Destruction [Z]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981.
[19] Czarniawska, B. Metaphors as Enemies of Organizing, or the Advantages of a Flat Discourse [J]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004 (166): 45-65.
[20] Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London: PinterPublishers Ltd, 1994.
[21] Elgin, C. Creation as Reconfiguration: Art in the Advancement of Science [J]. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2002 (16): 14-25.
[22] Faunconnier, G. Mapping in Thought and Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
[23] Fimmelman, J. and H. Krantz. Reading and Study Skills: A Rhetorical Approach [M]. New York: Macmillian, 1982.
[24] Forceville, C. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities [J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2004 (1): 83-89.
[25] Fogelin, R. J. Figuratively Speaking [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
[26] Freeman, M. H. Metaphor Making Meaning: Dickson’s Conceptual Universe [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1995 (24): 643-666.
[27] Gibbs, R. W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought and Understanding [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[28] Givon, T. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
[29] Goatly, A. The Language of Metaphor [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
[30] Goodman, N. Language of Art [M]. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976.
[31] Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[32] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold Pty Ltd, 1985.
[33] Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[34] Halliday, M. A. K. Language and Knowledge: The‘Unpacking’of Text [Z]. National University of Sigapore, 1996.
[35] Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Edward Arnold Limited, 1978.
[36] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[37] Johnstone, B. Discourse Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
[38] Kintch, W. and A. R. Bowles. Metaphor and Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand? [J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2002 (4): 249-262.
[39] Kittay, E. F. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
[40] K?vecses, Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction [M]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2002.
[41] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[42] Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[43] Lakoff, G. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1990 (1): 39-74.
[44] Langacker, R. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[45] Leezenberg, M. Contexts of Metaphor [M]. London, New York, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2001.
[46] Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[47] Martin, J. R. Text: System and Structure [Z]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co, 1992.
[48] Martin, J. R. English Text-System and Structure [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
[49] McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[50] Mooij, J. J. A. A Study of Metaphor [M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.
[51] Ortony, A, ed. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[52] Putnam, H. Reason, Truth and History [Z]. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981.
[53] Reddy, M. The Conduit Metaphor in Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[54] Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.
[55] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.
[56] Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
[57] Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[58] Thompson, G. Introducing Fractional Grammar [Z]. Edward Arnold Limited, 1996.
[59] Turner, M. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science [M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
[60] Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[61] Van Dijk, T. A, ed. Discourse and Dialogue [A]. Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C], Vol 3. London: Academic Press, 1985.
[62]陈道明.当代隐喻理论若干问题探讨[J].外语与外语教学,2004 (8): 4-7.
[63]陈忠华,刘心全,杨春苑.知识与语篇理解:话语分析认知科学方法论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
[64]程琪龙.语言认知和隐喻[J].外国语,2002 (1):12-15.
[65]范文芳.隐喻理论探究[J].山东外语教学,1997 (1).
[66]范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京:北京教学与研究出版社,2000.
[67]冯晓虎.隐喻:思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2004.
[68]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[69]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
[70]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[71]胡壮麟.语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1996 (4).
[72]黄国文.语篇分析概要[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988.
[73]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[74]刘振前.隐喻的范畴化过程和隐喻过程[J].四川外语学院学报,1999 (4).
[75]苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].外国语,1998 (4):44-49.
[76]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[77]束定芳.论隐喻的本质及语义特征[J].外国语,1998 (6).
[78]文旭.概念隐喻的系统性和连贯性[J].外语学刊,2003 (3):1-7.
[79]严世清.隐喻论[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,2000.
[80]尹辉.论隐喻的认知本质及对英语教学的启示[J].工会论坛,2002 (2).
[81]张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语,1999 (6).
[82]张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].外语教学与研究,2000 (2).
[83]张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度[J].外语与外语教学,2001 (1).
[84]赵艳芳.认知语言学理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
[85]朱永生.衔接理论的发展和完善[J].外国语,1995 (3).