双功能形容词语义结构的认知分析
|
摘要
多义词现象一直是语言学家研究的重要课题。双功能形容词是一类同时具有物质意义和心理意义的形容词,它属于的多义词的范畴。但对于该类多义词的研究非常少,因此本研究具有一定的创新意义。
本研究在综述国内外原型语义学理论,多义词意义关系理论,隐喻和转喻的文献的基础上提出了对双功能形容词的定义,分类。本研究还以三类日常生活中常用的双功能形容词为主要研究对象,并以其中7个为例,综合词典对该词的语义描述,基于对英国国家语料库(British National Corpus)中该词的搭配调查,分析了双功能形容词的语义结构特点,语义拓展的主要方向,及影响双功能形容词的语义结构和语义拓展的认知因素,并探讨了认知模式对双功能形容词语义结构及语义拓展影响的共通性。
通过大量的语料分析得出以下结论:双功能形容词的物质语义具有原型语义范畴的特征:一个双功能形容词的多个语义都可清晰的回溯到其物质语义;其语义结构多呈链条型与辐射型相结构的模式;双功能形容词相邻语义之间存在认知不对称性,即对于衍生意义的理解都受助于对其衍生来源的语义的理解;双功能形容词的语义拓展方向存在一些共性:其一向引起可能产生该物质意义的行为拓展,其二向类似该物质意义的情感意义发展,其三向处于该物质意义的状态发展;在该类形容词从原型语义(即物质语义)向心理语义拓展时,隐喻式的认知模式影响更为显著,并且不同类型的双功能形容词在隐喻式语义拓展的过程中显现出一些共性:都存在由物质域向情感域,性格域,人际关系域拓展的现象;当其心理语义已经形成并成为新的语义拓展的起点时,转喻式的认知模式作用更为突出,而在这个阶段中,部分代替整体这一类型的转喻占主导地位。
该结论有助于英语学习者的词汇学习与记忆:一个单词的各项语义之间并非互相孤立,而是潜藏着某种联系,这种联系将使英语学习者理解和记忆单词的语义更加清晰有序。
Double-function terms are adjectives that possess both physical and psychological meanings and belong to polysemy phenomenon. Although polysemy has been one important research focus in linguistic field, the researches on this group of polysemes are comparatively fewer both at home and abroad, so this research is of pioneering significance.
This research initiates with a review of literatures concerned with prototype semantic theory, polysemous sense models, metaphor and metonymy, followed by the definition and classification of double-function terms. Three high-frequently used types of them are the subjects in this research, seven of which are elaborated on based on the synthesis of semantic description in three dictionaries and examination of their collocations in British National Corpus. Through detailed analysis on the semantic structures, the main directions of their semantic extensions, and the cognitive influence on their semantic extension, this research attempts to probe into what similarities there are in their semantic structures and their semantic extensions and what functions metaphor and metonymy have on their semantic extensions.
Through detailed analysis on the semantic structures of them and the cognitive influence on their semantic extension, it is found that most semantic structures of double-function terms present combinational sense relation models, which is consistent with the research results of many other polysemes; most semantic networks of double-function terms also comply to the properties of prototype semantic categories: the multiple meanings of a double-function terms can be traced back to one same prototype meaning, namely, the physical meaning, and in the semantic structures, there are some typical meanings which have apparent connections with the physical one and atypical meanings which seem to have little connections with the physical meaning; there also exist some similarities in the semantic extension process: despite of their different physical meanings, many of them are extended to the behavior or action that arouses people of the feelings similar with the physical one, or the conditions when keeping that physical one. During the process of semantic extension from the prototypical meanings, namely the physical meanings, to its psychological meanings, metaphorical influence is more greatly found; and there exist some similarities in the metaphorical extensions, that is, we can find examples in most double-function terms the extensions from physical domains to emotion domain, character domain and inter-personal domain; when the psychological meanings become the sub-prototypes from which more psychological meanings are created, metonymical function is more obvious, and at this stage, the PART FOR WHOLE type of metonymy dominates the main position.
This result may be helpful for English learners in that the meaning entries of a word are no more random as they appear, but mutually-related potentially. Recognizing this relationship, English learners can better understand and memorize the word meanings.
本研究在综述国内外原型语义学理论,多义词意义关系理论,隐喻和转喻的文献的基础上提出了对双功能形容词的定义,分类。本研究还以三类日常生活中常用的双功能形容词为主要研究对象,并以其中7个为例,综合词典对该词的语义描述,基于对英国国家语料库(British National Corpus)中该词的搭配调查,分析了双功能形容词的语义结构特点,语义拓展的主要方向,及影响双功能形容词的语义结构和语义拓展的认知因素,并探讨了认知模式对双功能形容词语义结构及语义拓展影响的共通性。
通过大量的语料分析得出以下结论:双功能形容词的物质语义具有原型语义范畴的特征:一个双功能形容词的多个语义都可清晰的回溯到其物质语义;其语义结构多呈链条型与辐射型相结构的模式;双功能形容词相邻语义之间存在认知不对称性,即对于衍生意义的理解都受助于对其衍生来源的语义的理解;双功能形容词的语义拓展方向存在一些共性:其一向引起可能产生该物质意义的行为拓展,其二向类似该物质意义的情感意义发展,其三向处于该物质意义的状态发展;在该类形容词从原型语义(即物质语义)向心理语义拓展时,隐喻式的认知模式影响更为显著,并且不同类型的双功能形容词在隐喻式语义拓展的过程中显现出一些共性:都存在由物质域向情感域,性格域,人际关系域拓展的现象;当其心理语义已经形成并成为新的语义拓展的起点时,转喻式的认知模式作用更为突出,而在这个阶段中,部分代替整体这一类型的转喻占主导地位。
该结论有助于英语学习者的词汇学习与记忆:一个单词的各项语义之间并非互相孤立,而是潜藏着某种联系,这种联系将使英语学习者理解和记忆单词的语义更加清晰有序。
Double-function terms are adjectives that possess both physical and psychological meanings and belong to polysemy phenomenon. Although polysemy has been one important research focus in linguistic field, the researches on this group of polysemes are comparatively fewer both at home and abroad, so this research is of pioneering significance.
This research initiates with a review of literatures concerned with prototype semantic theory, polysemous sense models, metaphor and metonymy, followed by the definition and classification of double-function terms. Three high-frequently used types of them are the subjects in this research, seven of which are elaborated on based on the synthesis of semantic description in three dictionaries and examination of their collocations in British National Corpus. Through detailed analysis on the semantic structures, the main directions of their semantic extensions, and the cognitive influence on their semantic extension, this research attempts to probe into what similarities there are in their semantic structures and their semantic extensions and what functions metaphor and metonymy have on their semantic extensions.
Through detailed analysis on the semantic structures of them and the cognitive influence on their semantic extension, it is found that most semantic structures of double-function terms present combinational sense relation models, which is consistent with the research results of many other polysemes; most semantic networks of double-function terms also comply to the properties of prototype semantic categories: the multiple meanings of a double-function terms can be traced back to one same prototype meaning, namely, the physical meaning, and in the semantic structures, there are some typical meanings which have apparent connections with the physical one and atypical meanings which seem to have little connections with the physical meaning; there also exist some similarities in the semantic extension process: despite of their different physical meanings, many of them are extended to the behavior or action that arouses people of the feelings similar with the physical one, or the conditions when keeping that physical one. During the process of semantic extension from the prototypical meanings, namely the physical meanings, to its psychological meanings, metaphorical influence is more greatly found; and there exist some similarities in the metaphorical extensions, that is, we can find examples in most double-function terms the extensions from physical domains to emotion domain, character domain and inter-personal domain; when the psychological meanings become the sub-prototypes from which more psychological meanings are created, metonymical function is more obvious, and at this stage, the PART FOR WHOLE type of metonymy dominates the main position.
This result may be helpful for English learners in that the meaning entries of a word are no more random as they appear, but mutually-related potentially. Recognizing this relationship, English learners can better understand and memorize the word meanings.
引文
[1] Allwood, J. & Gardenfors, P. Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition [M]. Philadelphia: J.Benjamins Publisher. 1999.
[2] Bai Jiehong. A Cognitive Study of Polysemic Paradigms [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2001, (12), 9-10, 22. (白解红,2001,“多义聚合现象的认知研究”,《外语与外语研究》第12期。)
[3] Cossege Edition. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language(second edition)[M]. New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company. 1953.
[4] Cuyckens, H & Taylor, John R. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997.
[5] Dong Chengru. A Cognitive Account of Metonymy [J]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages University, 2004, (2), 6-9. (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] Earl R.Mac Corac. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1985.
[7] F. Ungerer and H.J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[8] Hatch, E & Brown, C. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[9] Hu Zhuanglin. Language,Cognition and Metaphor. Modern Foreign Languages, 1997, (4), 51-53, 59. (胡壮麟,1997,“语言·认知·隐喻”,《现代外语》第四期。).
[10] Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition. [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1983.
[11] John R. Taylor. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[12] Johnson, M. The Body in the mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination andReason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987.
[13] Lakoff, G & John, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[14] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
[15] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[16] Lakoff and Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1999.
[17] Lan Chun. Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2005. (蓝纯, 2005,认知语言学与隐喻研究,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。)
[18] Lappin, Shalom. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[19] Liao Guangrong. The Formulation of Semantic Relation Models of Polysemants [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2005, (3), 56-59. (廖光蓉,2005,“多义词意义关系模式研究”,《外语教育》第3期。)
[20] Liao Guangrong. On the Prototype Split and Shift, Sub categorization and Relevant Problems of a Polysemic Category [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2005, (10), 12-13. (廖光蓉,2005,“多义词范畴原型裂变,次范畴化及相关问题研究”,《外语与外语研究》第10期。)
[21] Lin Shuwu. A Critical Review of Metaphorical Research abroad. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1997, (1), 13-19. (林书武,1997,“国外隐喻研究综述”,《外语教学与研究》第1期。)
[22] Liu Guangzheng. Continuum-the Conceptual Relationship between Metonymy and Metaphor [J]. Modern Foreign Languages, 2002, (1), 61-70. (刘光正,2002,“论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系”,《现代外语》第1期。)
[23] Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[24] Marina Rakova. The Extent of the Literal—Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Beijing: Beijing University Press. 2004.
[25] Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996.
[26] Owen Watson. Longman Modern English Dictionary. Great Britain: The Longman Press. 1976.
[27] Rosch, E. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories [J]. Journal of Experimential Psychology, 1975, (General.104), 192-233.
[28] Saeed, J.I. Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[29] Shu Dingfang. Metaphor Research. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000. (束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究,上海:上海外语教育出版社。)
[30] Shu Dingfang. Metaphor and Metonymy: Similarities and Differences [J]. Journals of Foreign Languages, 2004, (3), 26-30. (束定芳,2004,“隐喻和换喻的差别与联系”,《外国语》第3期。)
[31] Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[32] Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press. 2004.
[33] Tan Yesheng, Sheng Shaojian. Systems of Emotional Metaphors: A Contrastive Study with Reference to Chinese and English Langue-cultures [J]. Research in Foreign Language and Literature, 2006, (3), 6-12. (谭业升,沈少剑,2006,“英汉情感隐喻系统与对比研究”,《外国语言文化研究》第三期。)
[34] Taylor, J.R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1989.
[35] Tian Bing Sense Differentiation and Description—A Cognitive Semantic Study on Polysemous Words. Beijing: Science Press. 2004.
[36] William Croft, D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Beijing UniversityPress. 2006.
[37] William Publishers. Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged) (encyclopaedic edition). New York: Publishers International Press. 1979.
[38] Xie Zhijun. Graphic Metaphor and the Complementary Semantic Models [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2002, (2), 30-35. (谢之君,2002,“图示隐喻与语义互补模式—评Persson的隐喻语义观”,《外国语》第2期。)
[39] Zhao Yanfang. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000. (赵艳芳,2000,认知语言学概论,上海:上海外语教育出版社。)
[40] Wang Wenbin. Creation and Evolvement of Metaphorical Meanings [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2007, (4), 13-17. (王文斌,2007,“隐喻性词义的生成与演变”,《外语与外语教学》第4期。)
[41] Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigation[M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 1953.
[42] Xu Lian. On Synaesthesia Meaning Extension [J]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages University, 2004, (5), 14-18. (徐莲,2004,“通感式词义引申的规律及其扩展”,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期。)
[43] Yang Bo, Zhanghui. Cross-modal Perception and Synaesthesia Adjectives [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2007, (1), 16-21. (杨波,张辉,“跨感官感知与通感形容词研究”,《外语教学》第1期。)
[44] Yang Zhizhong. Metaphorical Analysis on the Double-Function Terms [J]. Continue Education Research, 2007, (3), 169-171. (杨志忠, 2007,“双功能形容词隐喻分析”,《继续教育研究》第3期。)
[45] Zhang Hui. A Critical Review of Cognitive Semantics [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1999, (12), 4-8. (张辉,1999,“认知语义学述评”,《外语与外语研究》第12期。)
[46] Zhang Jianli. Polysemous Structure of Chinese Character Heart: Metonymy and Metaphor [J]. Rhetoric Learning, 2005, (1), 40-43.(张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义结构:转喻与隐喻,《修辞学习》第1期。)
[47] Zhao Weiwei, Li Jiehong. Cognitive Account of Double-Function Terms [J]. College English (Academic Edition), 2007, (4), 15-17. (赵伟伟,李洁红,2007,“双功能形容词多义性的认知理据”,《大学英语》(学术版)第4卷第一期。)
[2] Bai Jiehong. A Cognitive Study of Polysemic Paradigms [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2001, (12), 9-10, 22. (白解红,2001,“多义聚合现象的认知研究”,《外语与外语研究》第12期。)
[3] Cossege Edition. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language(second edition)[M]. New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company. 1953.
[4] Cuyckens, H & Taylor, John R. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [M]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997.
[5] Dong Chengru. A Cognitive Account of Metonymy [J]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages University, 2004, (2), 6-9. (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] Earl R.Mac Corac. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1985.
[7] F. Ungerer and H.J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[8] Hatch, E & Brown, C. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[9] Hu Zhuanglin. Language,Cognition and Metaphor. Modern Foreign Languages, 1997, (4), 51-53, 59. (胡壮麟,1997,“语言·认知·隐喻”,《现代外语》第四期。).
[10] Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition. [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1983.
[11] John R. Taylor. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[12] Johnson, M. The Body in the mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination andReason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987.
[13] Lakoff, G & John, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[14] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
[15] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind [M]. University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[16] Lakoff and Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1999.
[17] Lan Chun. Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2005. (蓝纯, 2005,认知语言学与隐喻研究,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。)
[18] Lappin, Shalom. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.
[19] Liao Guangrong. The Formulation of Semantic Relation Models of Polysemants [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2005, (3), 56-59. (廖光蓉,2005,“多义词意义关系模式研究”,《外语教育》第3期。)
[20] Liao Guangrong. On the Prototype Split and Shift, Sub categorization and Relevant Problems of a Polysemic Category [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2005, (10), 12-13. (廖光蓉,2005,“多义词范畴原型裂变,次范畴化及相关问题研究”,《外语与外语研究》第10期。)
[21] Lin Shuwu. A Critical Review of Metaphorical Research abroad. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1997, (1), 13-19. (林书武,1997,“国外隐喻研究综述”,《外语教学与研究》第1期。)
[22] Liu Guangzheng. Continuum-the Conceptual Relationship between Metonymy and Metaphor [J]. Modern Foreign Languages, 2002, (1), 61-70. (刘光正,2002,“论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系”,《现代外语》第1期。)
[23] Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[24] Marina Rakova. The Extent of the Literal—Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Beijing: Beijing University Press. 2004.
[25] Ortony, Andrew. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996.
[26] Owen Watson. Longman Modern English Dictionary. Great Britain: The Longman Press. 1976.
[27] Rosch, E. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories [J]. Journal of Experimential Psychology, 1975, (General.104), 192-233.
[28] Saeed, J.I. Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[29] Shu Dingfang. Metaphor Research. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000. (束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究,上海:上海外语教育出版社。)
[30] Shu Dingfang. Metaphor and Metonymy: Similarities and Differences [J]. Journals of Foreign Languages, 2004, (3), 26-30. (束定芳,2004,“隐喻和换喻的差别与联系”,《外国语》第3期。)
[31] Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[32] Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press. 2004.
[33] Tan Yesheng, Sheng Shaojian. Systems of Emotional Metaphors: A Contrastive Study with Reference to Chinese and English Langue-cultures [J]. Research in Foreign Language and Literature, 2006, (3), 6-12. (谭业升,沈少剑,2006,“英汉情感隐喻系统与对比研究”,《外国语言文化研究》第三期。)
[34] Taylor, J.R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1989.
[35] Tian Bing Sense Differentiation and Description—A Cognitive Semantic Study on Polysemous Words. Beijing: Science Press. 2004.
[36] William Croft, D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Beijing UniversityPress. 2006.
[37] William Publishers. Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged) (encyclopaedic edition). New York: Publishers International Press. 1979.
[38] Xie Zhijun. Graphic Metaphor and the Complementary Semantic Models [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2002, (2), 30-35. (谢之君,2002,“图示隐喻与语义互补模式—评Persson的隐喻语义观”,《外国语》第2期。)
[39] Zhao Yanfang. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2000. (赵艳芳,2000,认知语言学概论,上海:上海外语教育出版社。)
[40] Wang Wenbin. Creation and Evolvement of Metaphorical Meanings [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2007, (4), 13-17. (王文斌,2007,“隐喻性词义的生成与演变”,《外语与外语教学》第4期。)
[41] Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigation[M]. Oxford: Blackwell. 1953.
[42] Xu Lian. On Synaesthesia Meaning Extension [J]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages University, 2004, (5), 14-18. (徐莲,2004,“通感式词义引申的规律及其扩展”,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期。)
[43] Yang Bo, Zhanghui. Cross-modal Perception and Synaesthesia Adjectives [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2007, (1), 16-21. (杨波,张辉,“跨感官感知与通感形容词研究”,《外语教学》第1期。)
[44] Yang Zhizhong. Metaphorical Analysis on the Double-Function Terms [J]. Continue Education Research, 2007, (3), 169-171. (杨志忠, 2007,“双功能形容词隐喻分析”,《继续教育研究》第3期。)
[45] Zhang Hui. A Critical Review of Cognitive Semantics [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1999, (12), 4-8. (张辉,1999,“认知语义学述评”,《外语与外语研究》第12期。)
[46] Zhang Jianli. Polysemous Structure of Chinese Character Heart: Metonymy and Metaphor [J]. Rhetoric Learning, 2005, (1), 40-43.(张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义结构:转喻与隐喻,《修辞学习》第1期。)
[47] Zhao Weiwei, Li Jiehong. Cognitive Account of Double-Function Terms [J]. College English (Academic Edition), 2007, (4), 15-17. (赵伟伟,李洁红,2007,“双功能形容词多义性的认知理据”,《大学英语》(学术版)第4卷第一期。)