隐喻理解加工策略的选择机制
|
摘要
在隐喻理解的认知研究中,一部分学者认为,人们隐喻理解的策略是比较加工,而另一部分学者认为,在理解隐喻过程中,人们进行的是归类加工而不是比较加工。Gentner在2005年系统提出了隐喻轨迹理论,试图将这两类观点结合起来。她认为新奇隐喻倾向于比较加工,而常规隐喻倾向于归类加工,并且随着隐喻从新奇到常规的发展,隐喻理解会经历一个从比较到归类的加工策略转变。她认为,隐喻的常规性水平是影响隐喻理解加工策略转变的因素。之后,有学者提出不同观点,认为影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素不是常规性水平,而是适宜性。也有学者认为,影响因素是多义性。
基于研究现状,本论文有两个研究目的。第一,在汉语环境下,检验隐喻轨迹理论是否还能适用。第二,研究影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素是常规性、适宜性还是多义性。为此,我们进行了三个实验。
实验一考察了隐喻轨迹理论在汉语隐喻理解过程中是否适用。实验结果证实了汉语隐喻中隐喻轨迹理论同样适用。实验二考察了影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素。实验结果验证了我们的观点,认为常规性是影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素。而实验三的数据分析显示,适宜性和多义性的中介作用并未被证实。
本研究得出如下结论:1、在汉语隐喻理解中,隐喻轨迹理论依然有很大的适用性。2、汉语隐喻理解加工策略选择的首要影响因素,是隐喻的常规性水平,而不是隐喻喻体词的适宜性水平或隐喻句的多义性水平。3、汉语新奇隐喻在经历一定学习阶段后,本体词的较高抽象性,会促进加工策略向归类的转变。4、汉语隐喻的语法形式,并不能单独作为影响理解加工策略选择的独立因素。单独考虑语法形式对加工策略选择的影响是没有意义的。
In the metaphor comprehension's cognition research, some scholars believe that the strategy people using to understand metaphor is comparing processing, on the contrary, some other scholars believe that it is a classify processing. In 2005, Gentner propose a theory named "Career of Metaphor". She attempts to make the opposite viewpoints to unify. She thinks that the novel metaphor needs comparing process, but the conventional metaphor needs the classification process, and along with the metaphor from the novelty to the conventional development, we experience one transformation from comparing to classify processing. She also believes that the metaphor conventional level is the main factor that affects the transformation of processing strategy. Afterward, some scholars propose the different viewpoints. They claim that the most important factor that influences metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen is not the conventionality, but the aptness. Also has some scholars believe that the influencing factor is the polysemy.
Based on the present research situation, the paper has two research goals. First, under Chinese language environment, how suitable can "Career of Metaphor" also be? Second, which is the most important factor that affects the metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen, conventionality, aptness or polysemy? Therefore, we have carried on three formal experiments.
In the first two experiments we resume "Career of Metaphor" is fit for Chinese metaphor material. And the experimental result has confirmed our viewpoint that conventionality is the key factor in the choosing of metaphor understanding processing strategy. Moreover, the third experiment's data analysis demonstrated that the functions of the aptness and the polysemy has not been confirmed.
This research draws the following conclusions: First, in Chinese metaphor comprehension, "Career of Metaphor" still has the very big Usability. Second, the most important influencing factor of Chinese metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen, is conventionality, but not aptness or polysemy. Third, after the learning phase, if the target term of Chinese novel metaphor is highly abstractive, it will promote the processing strategy chosen to the classification transformation. Finally, Chinese metaphor's grammatical form, can not be regarded as the independent factor that influence understanding processing strategy chosen. We can't consider the grammatical form as an independent influencing factor in the process of Chinese metaphor comprehension.
基于研究现状,本论文有两个研究目的。第一,在汉语环境下,检验隐喻轨迹理论是否还能适用。第二,研究影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素是常规性、适宜性还是多义性。为此,我们进行了三个实验。
实验一考察了隐喻轨迹理论在汉语隐喻理解过程中是否适用。实验结果证实了汉语隐喻中隐喻轨迹理论同样适用。实验二考察了影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素。实验结果验证了我们的观点,认为常规性是影响隐喻理解加工策略选择的因素。而实验三的数据分析显示,适宜性和多义性的中介作用并未被证实。
本研究得出如下结论:1、在汉语隐喻理解中,隐喻轨迹理论依然有很大的适用性。2、汉语隐喻理解加工策略选择的首要影响因素,是隐喻的常规性水平,而不是隐喻喻体词的适宜性水平或隐喻句的多义性水平。3、汉语新奇隐喻在经历一定学习阶段后,本体词的较高抽象性,会促进加工策略向归类的转变。4、汉语隐喻的语法形式,并不能单独作为影响理解加工策略选择的独立因素。单独考虑语法形式对加工策略选择的影响是没有意义的。
In the metaphor comprehension's cognition research, some scholars believe that the strategy people using to understand metaphor is comparing processing, on the contrary, some other scholars believe that it is a classify processing. In 2005, Gentner propose a theory named "Career of Metaphor". She attempts to make the opposite viewpoints to unify. She thinks that the novel metaphor needs comparing process, but the conventional metaphor needs the classification process, and along with the metaphor from the novelty to the conventional development, we experience one transformation from comparing to classify processing. She also believes that the metaphor conventional level is the main factor that affects the transformation of processing strategy. Afterward, some scholars propose the different viewpoints. They claim that the most important factor that influences metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen is not the conventionality, but the aptness. Also has some scholars believe that the influencing factor is the polysemy.
Based on the present research situation, the paper has two research goals. First, under Chinese language environment, how suitable can "Career of Metaphor" also be? Second, which is the most important factor that affects the metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen, conventionality, aptness or polysemy? Therefore, we have carried on three formal experiments.
In the first two experiments we resume "Career of Metaphor" is fit for Chinese metaphor material. And the experimental result has confirmed our viewpoint that conventionality is the key factor in the choosing of metaphor understanding processing strategy. Moreover, the third experiment's data analysis demonstrated that the functions of the aptness and the polysemy has not been confirmed.
This research draws the following conclusions: First, in Chinese metaphor comprehension, "Career of Metaphor" still has the very big Usability. Second, the most important influencing factor of Chinese metaphor understanding processing strategy chosen, is conventionality, but not aptness or polysemy. Third, after the learning phase, if the target term of Chinese novel metaphor is highly abstractive, it will promote the processing strategy chosen to the classification transformation. Finally, Chinese metaphor's grammatical form, can not be regarded as the independent factor that influence understanding processing strategy chosen. We can't consider the grammatical form as an independent influencing factor in the process of Chinese metaphor comprehension.
引文
[1]Ahrens K.,Liu H.L.,Lee C.Y.,Gong S.P.,Fang S.Y.& Hsu Y.Y.(2007).Function MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese.Brain and Language 100:163-171.
[2]Arzouan Y.,Goldstein A.,& Faust M.(2007).Brainwaves are stethoscopes:ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension.Brain Research,1160:69-81.
[3]Blank,G.D.(1988).Metaphors in the lexicon.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,3:21-36.
[4]Blasko,D.G.,& Connine,C.M.(1993).Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,19:295-308.
[5]Boroditsky,L.(2000).Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors.Cognition,75:1-27.
[6]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(1995,November).The career of metaphor.Poster session presented at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society,Los Angeles,CA.
[7]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(1997).Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,34:244-286.
[8]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(2005).The Career of Metaphor,Psychological Review,112(1):193-216.
[9]Chiappe,D.,Kennedy,J.M.,& Smykowski,T.(2003).Reversibility,aptness and the conventionality of metaphors and similes.Metaphor and Symbol,18:85 - 105.
[10]Cooke,N.J.,&Bartha,M.C.(1992).An empirical investigation of psychological metaphor.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,7:215-235.
[11]Curt Burgess & Christine Chiarello,(1996).Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Metaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language,Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11(1):67-84.
[12]Falkenhainer,B.,Forbus,K.D.,& Gentner,D.(1989).The structure-mapping engine:Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41:1-63.
[13]Forbus,K.D.,Gentner,D.,& Law,K.(1995).MAC/FAC:A model of similarity-based retrieval.Cognitive Science,19:141-205.
[14]Gentner,D.(1983).Structure-mapping:A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7:155-170.
[15]Gentner,D.(1988).Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift.Child Development,59:47-59.
[16]Gentner,D.,& Bowdle,B.F.(2001).Convention,form,and figurative language processing.Metaphor and Symbol,16:223-247.
[17]Gentner,D.,Bowdle,B.,Wolff,P.,& Boronat,C.(2001),Metaphor is Like Analogy,The analogical mind:Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199-253).Cambridge MA,MIT Press
[18]Gentner,D.,&Grudin,J.(1985).The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology:A 90-year retrospective.American Psychologist,40:181-192.
[19]Gentner,D.,Loewenstein,J.,& Thompson,L.(2003).Learning and transfer A general role for analogical encoding.Journal of Educational Psychology,95:393-408.
[20]Gentner,D.,&Markman,A.B.(1997).Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.American Psychologist,52:45-56.
[21]Gentner,D.,& Wolff,P.(1997).Alignment in the processing of metaphor.Journal of Memory and Language,37:331-355.
[22]Gibbs,H.,& Wales,R.(1990).Metaphor or simile:Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,5:199-213.
[23]Gibbs,R.W.(1992).Categorization and metaphor understanding.Psychological Review,99:572-577.
[24]Giora,R.(1997).Understanding figurative and literal language:The graded salience hypothesis.Cognitive Linguistics,8:183-206.
[25]Giora,R.(1999) On the priority of salient meanings:studies of literal and figurative language.Pragmatic.31:919-929
[26]Glucksberg,S.,Gildea,P.,& Book in,H.B.(1982).On understanding nonliteral speech:Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,21:85-98.
[27]Glucksberg,S.,& Haught,C.(2006).On the relation between metaphor and simile:When comparison fails.Mind and Language,21:360 - 378.
[28]Glucksberg,S.,& Keysar,B.(1990).Understanding metaphorical comparisons:Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97:3-18.
[29]Glucksberg,S.,McGlone,M.S.,& Manfredi,D.(1997).Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language,36:50-67.
[30]Indurkhya,B.(1987).Approximate semantic transference:A computational theory of metaphor and analogy.Cognitive Science,11:445-480.
[31]Johnson,A.T.(1996).Comprehension of metaphors and similes:A reaction time study.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,11:145-159.
[32]Jones,L.L.,& Estes,Z.(2006).Roosters,robins and alarm clocks:Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language,55:18 - 32.
[33]Katz,A.N.(1989).On choosing the vehicles of metaphors:Referential concreteness,semantic distances,and individual differences.Journal of Memory and Language,28:486-499.
[34]Keysar,B.(1989).On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse.Journal of Memory and Language,28:375-385.
[35]Kintsch,W.(2000).Metaphor comprehension:A computational theory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7:257-266.
[36]Kintsch,W.and Anita R.Bowles,(2002).Metaphor Comprehension:What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand? Metaphor and Symbol,17(4):249-262
[37]Kotovsky,L.,& Gentner,D.(1996).Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity.Child Development,67:2797-2822.
[38]Lehrer,A.(1990).Polysemy,conventionality,and the structure of the lexicon.Cognitive Linguistics,1:207-246.
[39]Markman,A.B.,& Gentner,D.(1993).Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,25:431-467.
[40]Markman,A.B.,& Gentner,D.(2000).Structure-mapping in the comparison process.American Journal of Psychology,113:501-538.
[41]Mashal,N.Faust,M,& Hendler,T.& Jung-Beeman M.(2007).An Fmri investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions.Brain and Language,100:115-126
[42]Novick,L.R.,& Holyoak,K.J.(1991).Mathematical problem solving by analogy.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,17:398-415.
[43]Ortony,A.(1979).Beyond literal similarity.Psychological Review,86:161-180.
[44]0rtony,A.,Vondruska,R.J.,Foss,M.A.,& Jones,L.E.(1985).Salience,similes,and the asymmetry of similarity.Journal of Memory and Language,24:569-594.
[45]Pollio,H.R.,Smith,M.K.,& Pollio,M.R.(1990).Figurative language and cognitive psychology.Language and Cognitive Processes,5:141-167.
[46]Roberts,R.M.,& Kreuz,R.J.(1994).Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science,5:159-163.
[47]Shen,Y.(1992).Metaphors and categories.Poetics Today,13:771-794.
[48]Tourangeau,R.,& Rips,L.(1991).Interpreting and evaluating metaphors.Journal of Memory and Language,30:452-472.
[49]Tourangeau,R.,& Sternberg,R.J.(1982).Understanding and appreciating metaphors.Cognition,11:203-244.
[50]Turner,N.E.,& Katz,A.N.(1997).The availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs.Pragmatics and Cognition,5:199-233.
[51]Utsumi,A.(2005).The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation.Metaphor and Symbol,20:152-172.
[52]Wolff,P.,& Gentner,D.(2000).Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,26:1-13.
[53]陈新葵、莫雷、张积家,隐喻在文章语境中的理解——概念隐喻理论探讨,心理科学[J]2006,29(1):14-17
[54]陈燕 黄希庭,时间隐喻研究述评,心理科学进展[J]2006,14(4):604-609
[55]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。
[56]桂诗春,潜伏语义分析的理论及其应用,现代外语(学刊)[J]2003,26(1):76-84
[57]郭贵春,隐喻、修辞与科学解释[M],北京:科学出版社,2007
[58]郭建恩,许百华,吴旭晓,国外隐喻的理论研究与实践应用,心理科学进展[J]2004.12(4):615-621
[59]胡壮麟,认知隐喻学[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[60]胡壮麟《语言·认知·隐喻》,现代外语[J],1997,78(4):1-16
[61]黄孝喜 周昌乐,隐喻理解的计算模型综述,计算机科学[J]2006.33(8):178-183
[62]刘菁,冯涛,韩骏,两种隐喻理解的认知理论研究,首都师范大学学报(社会科学版)[J]2006(4):121-124
[63]刘菁,张必隐,隐喻理解认知加工的几种主要理论,宁波大学学报(教育科学版)[J]2001,23(1):14-17
[64]刘菁,张必隐.本体和喻体在隐喻句理解中的作用.心理科学[J],2002,25(3):363-364
[65]刘宇红,认知语言学:理论与应用[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006
[66]卢植,认知与语言——认知语言学引论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006。
[67]麻彦坤,心理隐喻的变迁与心理学的发展,西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)[J]2003.29(6):25-30
[68]迈克尔·布雷德著,王善博译,科学中的模型与隐喻:隐喻性的转向,山东大学学报[J]2006.3:92-99
[69]束定芳,隐喻学研究[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
[70]汤颖怡,隐喻理解机制——概念隐喻模型还是特征归属模型[D],华南师范大学,2007。
[71]唐世民,隐喻理解的特征赋予模型,外语与外语教学[J]2007(9):9-13
[72]谢之君,隐喻认知功能探索[M],上海:复旦大学出版社,2007
[73]许高渝,20世纪汉外语言对比研究[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2006。
[74]袁晖,现代汉语多义词词典[Z],太原:书海出版社,2001。
[75]赵宗金,隐喻意义的开放性_隐喻理解过程的心理语言学分析,社会科学研究[J],2006.1:41-45
[76]周榕,黄希庭,隐喻理解加工机制的研究,心理学动态[J]1999,7(3):19-25
[77]周榕,黄希庭.儿童时间隐喻表征能力的发展研究.心理科学[J],2001,24(5):606-609
[78]周榕,黄希庭.时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究.心理科学[J],2000,23(2):141-145
[79]周榕.时间隐喻表征研究.西南师范大学博士论文[D],2000
[80]朱宝荣,哲学交叉学科系列丛书:心理哲学[M],上海:复旦大学出版社,2004。
[2]Arzouan Y.,Goldstein A.,& Faust M.(2007).Brainwaves are stethoscopes:ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension.Brain Research,1160:69-81.
[3]Blank,G.D.(1988).Metaphors in the lexicon.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,3:21-36.
[4]Blasko,D.G.,& Connine,C.M.(1993).Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,19:295-308.
[5]Boroditsky,L.(2000).Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors.Cognition,75:1-27.
[6]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(1995,November).The career of metaphor.Poster session presented at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society,Los Angeles,CA.
[7]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(1997).Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,34:244-286.
[8]Bowdle,B.F.,& Gentner,D.(2005).The Career of Metaphor,Psychological Review,112(1):193-216.
[9]Chiappe,D.,Kennedy,J.M.,& Smykowski,T.(2003).Reversibility,aptness and the conventionality of metaphors and similes.Metaphor and Symbol,18:85 - 105.
[10]Cooke,N.J.,&Bartha,M.C.(1992).An empirical investigation of psychological metaphor.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,7:215-235.
[11]Curt Burgess & Christine Chiarello,(1996).Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Metaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language,Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11(1):67-84.
[12]Falkenhainer,B.,Forbus,K.D.,& Gentner,D.(1989).The structure-mapping engine:Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41:1-63.
[13]Forbus,K.D.,Gentner,D.,& Law,K.(1995).MAC/FAC:A model of similarity-based retrieval.Cognitive Science,19:141-205.
[14]Gentner,D.(1983).Structure-mapping:A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7:155-170.
[15]Gentner,D.(1988).Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift.Child Development,59:47-59.
[16]Gentner,D.,& Bowdle,B.F.(2001).Convention,form,and figurative language processing.Metaphor and Symbol,16:223-247.
[17]Gentner,D.,Bowdle,B.,Wolff,P.,& Boronat,C.(2001),Metaphor is Like Analogy,The analogical mind:Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199-253).Cambridge MA,MIT Press
[18]Gentner,D.,&Grudin,J.(1985).The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology:A 90-year retrospective.American Psychologist,40:181-192.
[19]Gentner,D.,Loewenstein,J.,& Thompson,L.(2003).Learning and transfer A general role for analogical encoding.Journal of Educational Psychology,95:393-408.
[20]Gentner,D.,&Markman,A.B.(1997).Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.American Psychologist,52:45-56.
[21]Gentner,D.,& Wolff,P.(1997).Alignment in the processing of metaphor.Journal of Memory and Language,37:331-355.
[22]Gibbs,H.,& Wales,R.(1990).Metaphor or simile:Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,5:199-213.
[23]Gibbs,R.W.(1992).Categorization and metaphor understanding.Psychological Review,99:572-577.
[24]Giora,R.(1997).Understanding figurative and literal language:The graded salience hypothesis.Cognitive Linguistics,8:183-206.
[25]Giora,R.(1999) On the priority of salient meanings:studies of literal and figurative language.Pragmatic.31:919-929
[26]Glucksberg,S.,Gildea,P.,& Book in,H.B.(1982).On understanding nonliteral speech:Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,21:85-98.
[27]Glucksberg,S.,& Haught,C.(2006).On the relation between metaphor and simile:When comparison fails.Mind and Language,21:360 - 378.
[28]Glucksberg,S.,& Keysar,B.(1990).Understanding metaphorical comparisons:Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97:3-18.
[29]Glucksberg,S.,McGlone,M.S.,& Manfredi,D.(1997).Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language,36:50-67.
[30]Indurkhya,B.(1987).Approximate semantic transference:A computational theory of metaphor and analogy.Cognitive Science,11:445-480.
[31]Johnson,A.T.(1996).Comprehension of metaphors and similes:A reaction time study.Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,11:145-159.
[32]Jones,L.L.,& Estes,Z.(2006).Roosters,robins and alarm clocks:Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language,55:18 - 32.
[33]Katz,A.N.(1989).On choosing the vehicles of metaphors:Referential concreteness,semantic distances,and individual differences.Journal of Memory and Language,28:486-499.
[34]Keysar,B.(1989).On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse.Journal of Memory and Language,28:375-385.
[35]Kintsch,W.(2000).Metaphor comprehension:A computational theory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7:257-266.
[36]Kintsch,W.and Anita R.Bowles,(2002).Metaphor Comprehension:What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand? Metaphor and Symbol,17(4):249-262
[37]Kotovsky,L.,& Gentner,D.(1996).Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity.Child Development,67:2797-2822.
[38]Lehrer,A.(1990).Polysemy,conventionality,and the structure of the lexicon.Cognitive Linguistics,1:207-246.
[39]Markman,A.B.,& Gentner,D.(1993).Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,25:431-467.
[40]Markman,A.B.,& Gentner,D.(2000).Structure-mapping in the comparison process.American Journal of Psychology,113:501-538.
[41]Mashal,N.Faust,M,& Hendler,T.& Jung-Beeman M.(2007).An Fmri investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions.Brain and Language,100:115-126
[42]Novick,L.R.,& Holyoak,K.J.(1991).Mathematical problem solving by analogy.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,17:398-415.
[43]Ortony,A.(1979).Beyond literal similarity.Psychological Review,86:161-180.
[44]0rtony,A.,Vondruska,R.J.,Foss,M.A.,& Jones,L.E.(1985).Salience,similes,and the asymmetry of similarity.Journal of Memory and Language,24:569-594.
[45]Pollio,H.R.,Smith,M.K.,& Pollio,M.R.(1990).Figurative language and cognitive psychology.Language and Cognitive Processes,5:141-167.
[46]Roberts,R.M.,& Kreuz,R.J.(1994).Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science,5:159-163.
[47]Shen,Y.(1992).Metaphors and categories.Poetics Today,13:771-794.
[48]Tourangeau,R.,& Rips,L.(1991).Interpreting and evaluating metaphors.Journal of Memory and Language,30:452-472.
[49]Tourangeau,R.,& Sternberg,R.J.(1982).Understanding and appreciating metaphors.Cognition,11:203-244.
[50]Turner,N.E.,& Katz,A.N.(1997).The availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs.Pragmatics and Cognition,5:199-233.
[51]Utsumi,A.(2005).The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation.Metaphor and Symbol,20:152-172.
[52]Wolff,P.,& Gentner,D.(2000).Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,26:1-13.
[53]陈新葵、莫雷、张积家,隐喻在文章语境中的理解——概念隐喻理论探讨,心理科学[J]2006,29(1):14-17
[54]陈燕 黄希庭,时间隐喻研究述评,心理科学进展[J]2006,14(4):604-609
[55]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。
[56]桂诗春,潜伏语义分析的理论及其应用,现代外语(学刊)[J]2003,26(1):76-84
[57]郭贵春,隐喻、修辞与科学解释[M],北京:科学出版社,2007
[58]郭建恩,许百华,吴旭晓,国外隐喻的理论研究与实践应用,心理科学进展[J]2004.12(4):615-621
[59]胡壮麟,认知隐喻学[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
[60]胡壮麟《语言·认知·隐喻》,现代外语[J],1997,78(4):1-16
[61]黄孝喜 周昌乐,隐喻理解的计算模型综述,计算机科学[J]2006.33(8):178-183
[62]刘菁,冯涛,韩骏,两种隐喻理解的认知理论研究,首都师范大学学报(社会科学版)[J]2006(4):121-124
[63]刘菁,张必隐,隐喻理解认知加工的几种主要理论,宁波大学学报(教育科学版)[J]2001,23(1):14-17
[64]刘菁,张必隐.本体和喻体在隐喻句理解中的作用.心理科学[J],2002,25(3):363-364
[65]刘宇红,认知语言学:理论与应用[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006
[66]卢植,认知与语言——认知语言学引论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006。
[67]麻彦坤,心理隐喻的变迁与心理学的发展,西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)[J]2003.29(6):25-30
[68]迈克尔·布雷德著,王善博译,科学中的模型与隐喻:隐喻性的转向,山东大学学报[J]2006.3:92-99
[69]束定芳,隐喻学研究[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
[70]汤颖怡,隐喻理解机制——概念隐喻模型还是特征归属模型[D],华南师范大学,2007。
[71]唐世民,隐喻理解的特征赋予模型,外语与外语教学[J]2007(9):9-13
[72]谢之君,隐喻认知功能探索[M],上海:复旦大学出版社,2007
[73]许高渝,20世纪汉外语言对比研究[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2006。
[74]袁晖,现代汉语多义词词典[Z],太原:书海出版社,2001。
[75]赵宗金,隐喻意义的开放性_隐喻理解过程的心理语言学分析,社会科学研究[J],2006.1:41-45
[76]周榕,黄希庭,隐喻理解加工机制的研究,心理学动态[J]1999,7(3):19-25
[77]周榕,黄希庭.儿童时间隐喻表征能力的发展研究.心理科学[J],2001,24(5):606-609
[78]周榕,黄希庭.时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究.心理科学[J],2000,23(2):141-145
[79]周榕.时间隐喻表征研究.西南师范大学博士论文[D],2000
[80]朱宝荣,哲学交叉学科系列丛书:心理哲学[M],上海:复旦大学出版社,2004。