认知语法视角下的意象分析与翻译
|
摘要
本文从认知语法视角探讨翻译过程中的意义构建,尤其是意象的分析与转换。根据认知语言学的观点,本文认为意义即是概念化,是主观的、百科性的、以人的体验为基础并根植于特定的语言和文化认知模型中的。所有的语言结构都有其认知动因,语言结构反映概念结构,因此语法结构的不同意味着概念结构的不同。语言表达的完整意义不仅仅是它的概念内容,还包括对此内容的识解方式,即概念内容所呈现的意象。语法形式的作用在于表达意象,以凸显概念内容的某一方面,或规定描写的精细程度,或施加特定的观察视角。据此,本文认为应该把翻译活动置于认知层面上加以考察。翻译作为一个认知过程,是使用目的语来重现由原语所激发的概念化情景,从概念内容和意象两个方面寻求原语和目的语在认知上的对等。
本文结合兰盖克的认知语法、菲尔墨的框架语义学以及雷可夫和约翰逊的概念隐喻理论,构建了一个综合的理论框架来描述翻译中的概念化过程及其各种认知加工。在此理论框架下,本文讨论了翻译的性质、语言之间的可译性、翻译对等的条件和单位、翻译中形式和意义的关系等翻译研究中一些有争议的问题。贯穿所有这些讨论的中心议题是翻译中的意象分析与处理。本文首先从不同维度(刻画、细度、凸显、视角)描述了语法形式所传达的意象及其在翻译中的表现。然后,本文把隐喻视作一种特定的识解方式并从强度、密度、一致性和文化模型等方面分析讨论了翻译中的隐喻意象问题。在此基础上,本文对比了英汉两语言在意象层面上的典型差异及其对英汉互译的影响,并作为案例分析了英汉互译中的序列相似性、名词性等问题,最后尝试从认知语法视角分析评价了一首英语短诗的不同汉译。
通过理论探讨和实践例证的结合,本文提出了以下论点:翻译中的对等应建立在认知层面上,而不仅仅是语言层面上;翻译应以传达原文所刻画的概念化情景(包括概念内容及其意象结构)为原则,而非单纯地传达原文中的客观内容;翻译应该以概念化情景为单位,而不应以词句等表层语言形式为单位;整体意象重于局部意象,因此同一概念化情景中的诸多意象之间应和谐一致;翻译应该尽可能忠实于原文的意象结构,非强制性的意象改变应尽量避免,而由语言规范造成的强制性的意象差异则可采取某些措施在一定程度上加以弥补。
This study endeavors to illustrate how a Cognitive Grammar approach could prove useful in providing some insights and practical suggestions for meaning construction in the translation process, especially for the analysis and transfer of imagery. Following the cognitivist view, this study maintains that meaning is conceptualization, which is embodied, subjective, encyclopedic in nature, and deeply rooted in language- and culture-specific cognitive models. The principle of language iconicity entails that linguistic structures correspond to conceptual structures and that all linguistic structures are cognitively motivated. Differences in grammatical forms thus imply differences in conceptual structures. The full value of a linguistic expression is, therefore, a function both of its conceptual content and of how this content is structured or construed. The ways of construal in meaning construction constistute what we mean by“imagey”in this study. The cognitive approach treats grammar as imagery imposed on the conceptual content, representing the relative prominence of elements, their schematicity or specificity, and the point of view adopted. In this light, we suggest that translation should be practised and evaluated on the conceptual level, as a cognitive activity of depicting in one language the conceived situation that is activated by a text in another language. The transfer of the conceived situation consists in capturing both the conceptual content and its imagery.
Incorporating Langcker’s theory of Cognitive Grammar with Fillmore’s concept of frames and Lakoff and Johnson’s model of conceptual metaphor, this thesis proposes an integrated theorectical framework for a description of the translation process in cognitive terms, with a special focus on the translating of imagery. Imagery conveyed by grammar is analyzed by means of the various dimensions of scene construal (profiling, specificity, prominence, and perspective) as identified by Langacker, while imagery generally associated with the so-called“figurative”language is discussed in terms of metaphorical forcefulness, congruence, exuberance, and cultural models, with such phenomena as metaphor and metonymy regarded as fundamental cognitive mechanisms for language and thought.
The study then carries out an examination of the differences in conceptual organization between English and Chinese. The widely discussed similarities and especially divergences between the two languages, with the consequent shifts of imagery in terms of scene construal during the translation process, are re-considered within the proposed theoretical framework and many topics that were traditionally dealt with as linguistic phenomena are illuminated in a new, cognitive light.
本文结合兰盖克的认知语法、菲尔墨的框架语义学以及雷可夫和约翰逊的概念隐喻理论,构建了一个综合的理论框架来描述翻译中的概念化过程及其各种认知加工。在此理论框架下,本文讨论了翻译的性质、语言之间的可译性、翻译对等的条件和单位、翻译中形式和意义的关系等翻译研究中一些有争议的问题。贯穿所有这些讨论的中心议题是翻译中的意象分析与处理。本文首先从不同维度(刻画、细度、凸显、视角)描述了语法形式所传达的意象及其在翻译中的表现。然后,本文把隐喻视作一种特定的识解方式并从强度、密度、一致性和文化模型等方面分析讨论了翻译中的隐喻意象问题。在此基础上,本文对比了英汉两语言在意象层面上的典型差异及其对英汉互译的影响,并作为案例分析了英汉互译中的序列相似性、名词性等问题,最后尝试从认知语法视角分析评价了一首英语短诗的不同汉译。
通过理论探讨和实践例证的结合,本文提出了以下论点:翻译中的对等应建立在认知层面上,而不仅仅是语言层面上;翻译应以传达原文所刻画的概念化情景(包括概念内容及其意象结构)为原则,而非单纯地传达原文中的客观内容;翻译应该以概念化情景为单位,而不应以词句等表层语言形式为单位;整体意象重于局部意象,因此同一概念化情景中的诸多意象之间应和谐一致;翻译应该尽可能忠实于原文的意象结构,非强制性的意象改变应尽量避免,而由语言规范造成的强制性的意象差异则可采取某些措施在一定程度上加以弥补。
This study endeavors to illustrate how a Cognitive Grammar approach could prove useful in providing some insights and practical suggestions for meaning construction in the translation process, especially for the analysis and transfer of imagery. Following the cognitivist view, this study maintains that meaning is conceptualization, which is embodied, subjective, encyclopedic in nature, and deeply rooted in language- and culture-specific cognitive models. The principle of language iconicity entails that linguistic structures correspond to conceptual structures and that all linguistic structures are cognitively motivated. Differences in grammatical forms thus imply differences in conceptual structures. The full value of a linguistic expression is, therefore, a function both of its conceptual content and of how this content is structured or construed. The ways of construal in meaning construction constistute what we mean by“imagey”in this study. The cognitive approach treats grammar as imagery imposed on the conceptual content, representing the relative prominence of elements, their schematicity or specificity, and the point of view adopted. In this light, we suggest that translation should be practised and evaluated on the conceptual level, as a cognitive activity of depicting in one language the conceived situation that is activated by a text in another language. The transfer of the conceived situation consists in capturing both the conceptual content and its imagery.
Incorporating Langcker’s theory of Cognitive Grammar with Fillmore’s concept of frames and Lakoff and Johnson’s model of conceptual metaphor, this thesis proposes an integrated theorectical framework for a description of the translation process in cognitive terms, with a special focus on the translating of imagery. Imagery conveyed by grammar is analyzed by means of the various dimensions of scene construal (profiling, specificity, prominence, and perspective) as identified by Langacker, while imagery generally associated with the so-called“figurative”language is discussed in terms of metaphorical forcefulness, congruence, exuberance, and cultural models, with such phenomena as metaphor and metonymy regarded as fundamental cognitive mechanisms for language and thought.
The study then carries out an examination of the differences in conceptual organization between English and Chinese. The widely discussed similarities and especially divergences between the two languages, with the consequent shifts of imagery in terms of scene construal during the translation process, are re-considered within the proposed theoretical framework and many topics that were traditionally dealt with as linguistic phenomena are illuminated in a new, cognitive light.
引文
Alexieva, Bistra. 1993. A cognitive approach to translation equivalence. In Palma Zlateva (ed.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives. London/New York: Routledge, 101-109.
Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potential and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, RenéDirven & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 29-65.
Alvarez, Antonia. 1993. On translating metaphor. Meta 38(3): 479-490.
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London/New York: Routledge.
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer. 2000.“Introduction”. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies (3rd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Longman.
Bell, Roger T. 1998. Psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches. In Mona Baker (ed.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 185-190.
Bizup, Joseph, and Eugene Kintgen. 1993. The cognitive paradigm in literary studies. College English 55(8): 841-857.
Black, Max. 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. The atomization of meaning. Language 41: 555-573.
Brandt, Line, and Per Aage Brandt. 2005. Cognitive poetics and imagery. European Journal of English Studies 9(2): 117-130.
Brower, Reuben A. (ed.). 1966. On Translation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Wangdao (陈望道). 2001.《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive linguistics 10(1): 1-31.
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dagut, Menachem B. 1976. Can“metaphor”be translated? Babel 22(1): 21-33.
Dickins, James. 2005. Two models for metaphor translation. Target 17(2): 227-273.
Dirven, René. 1999. The cognitive motivation for adjective sequences in attribution. Journal of English Studies (1): 57-67.
Dirven, René, and Ralph P?rings (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, René, and Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dobrzynska, Teresa. 1995. Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 595-604.
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 2003. Cognitive linguistics. In Lynn Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Macmillan, 1-5.
Fawcett, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Scenes-and frames semantics. In Antonio Zampolli (ed.), Linguistics Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 55-81.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111-137.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222-254.
Fludernik, Monika, Donald C. Freeman, and Margaret H. Freeman. 1999. Metaphor and beyond: New cognitive developments. Poetics Today 20(3) 383-396.
Freeman, Margaret H. 2002. Momentary stays, exploding forces: A cognitive linguistic approach to the poetics of Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost. Journal of English Linguistics 30(1): 73-90.
Fung, Mary M.Y., and K.L. Kiu. Metaphor across language and culture. Babel 33(2): 84-106.
Gardner, Martin. 2000. The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gavins, Joanna, and Gerard Steen (eds.). 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Jody Bogdonovich. 1999. Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 14(1): 37-44.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Gerard Steen. 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givon, Talmy. 1994. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 47-76.
Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gross, Sabine. 1997. Cognitive readings; or, The disappearance of literature in the mind. Poetics Today 18(2): 271-297.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haiman, John. 1980a. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56: 515-540.
Haiman, John. 1980b. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50: 329-357.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781-819.
Hart, Elizabeth. 1995. Cognitive linguistics: The experiential dynamics of metaphor. Mosaic 28: 1-23.
Hilferty, Joseph. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An introductory sketch. Retrieved 10 May, 2005 from http://www.lingua.fil.ub.es/hilferty/coglx.pdf.
House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hu, Helen Chau. 2003. Cognitive-functional considerations in translating. IRAL 41: 107-130.
Hu, Qian. 1993. On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part III). Meta 38(2): 226-237.
Jakobson, Roman. 1966. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 232-239.
Janda, Laura. 2000. Cognitive linguistics. SLING2K Position Paper.
Janssen, Theo, and Gisela Redeker. 1999. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, Mark. 1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics 3(4): 345-366.
Jonasson, Kerstin. 2004.“Deverbalisation meets scenes-and-frames semantics”. Paper from Workshop in Marrakech, Mar. 28th-Apr. 4th. Retrieved June 10, 2005 from http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/expertise/JonassonMarrakech1.doc.
Ju, Zuchun (居祖纯). 2000.《高级汉英语篇翻译》.北京:清华大学出版社.
Kenner, Hugh. 1973. The Pound Era. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Knowles, Murray, and Rosamund Moon. 2006. Introducing Metaphor. London/New York: Routledge.
K?vecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
K?vecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation.
Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kussmaul, Paul. 2001. A cognitive framework for looking at creative mental processes. In Maeve Olohan (ed.), Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies—Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St Jerome, 57-72.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics (1): 39-74.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-251.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language 58(1): 22-80.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. An introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10: 1-40.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1): 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988a. A view of linguistic semantics. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49-90.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988b. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-161.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 2): Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 1-39.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages (《外国语》) 6: 2-24.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Leech, Geoffrey, and Mick Short. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Lefevere, André. (ed. & trans.). 1992. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London/New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, André. 1993. Introduction to Bistra Alexieva’s“A cognitive approach to translation equivalence”. In Palma Zlateva (ed.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives. London/New York: Routledge, 101-102.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1976. Review of Eugene A. Nida on semantics and translation. Language 52(4): 972-976.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Yunxing (李运兴). 2003.《英汉语篇翻译》(2nd ed.).北京:清华大学出版社.
Lin, Tongji (林同济). 1990.“从汉语词序看长句翻译”. In杨自俭,李瑞华(eds.),《英汉对比研究论文集》.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 391-403. First appeared 1980 in 《现代英语研究》(1): pp. n/a.
Lin, Yutang (林语堂). 1994.“论东西思想法之不同”. In刘慧英(ed.),《林语堂自传:自传拾遗》(vol. 1).南京:江苏文艺出版社.
López, Ana M.R. 2002. Applying Frame Semantics to translation: A practical example. Meta 47(3): 311-350.
McElhanon, Kenneth. 2005. From word to scenario: The influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation. Journal of Translation 1(3): 29-67.
Neubert, Albrecht. 1991. Models of translation. In Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 17-26.
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. London/New York: Prentice Hall.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Olohan, Maeve, and Christoph Z?hner. 1996. Translation theory and cognitive linguistics. In Tina Hickey and Jeny Williams (eds.), Language, Education and Society in a Changing World. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 143-150.
Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, Wenguo (潘文国). 1997/2002.《汉英语对比纲要》.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
Pan, Wenguo (潘文国). 2002.《字本位与汉语研究》.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Popova, Yanna. 2002. The figure in the carpet: Discovery or re-cognition. In Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper (eds.), Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49-72.
Peer, Willie van. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
Radden, Günter. 1992. The cognitive approach to natural language. In Martin Pütz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 513-541.
Reddy, Michael. 1979/1993. The conduit metaphor: A case frame conflict in our language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324.
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York/London: Oxford University Press.
Round, Nicholas. 1999. Developing a unified view of translation: Pragmatic and cognitive perspectives. Seminar talk at the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, The University of Manchester. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/ctis/activities/seminars/seminars-9899/.
Sch?ffner, Christina. 2004. Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1253-1269.
Semino, Elena, and Jonathan Culpeper (eds.). 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shao, Zhihong (邵志洪). 1997.《英汉语研究与对比》.上海:华东理工大学出版社.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 1994. R. W. Langacker的认知语法.《国外语言学》1: 12-20.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 1999.转指和转喻.《当代语言学》1: 3-15.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 2000.“认知语法”的概括性.《外语教学与研究》1: 29-33.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1995. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach (rev. ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard. 1994. Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach. London/New York: Longman.
Stern, Josef . 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
Sullivan, John P., (ed.). 1970. Ezra Pound: A Critical Anthology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 1993. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2001. Is (cognitive) linguistics of any use for (literary) translation?. In Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, and Riitta J??skel?inen (eds), Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83-95.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2003. Iconicity and literary translation. In Wolfgang G. Müller and Olga Fischer (eds.), From Sign to Signing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 361-376.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2006. Iconicity. In Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola ?stman (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tai, J. H.-Y. (戴浩一). 1985. Temporal sequence in Chinese word order. In John Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 49-72.
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 625-649.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165-207.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsur, Reuven. 2003. Deixis and abstractions: Adventures in space and time. In Joanna Gavins and Gerard Steen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge, 41-54.
Tuggy, David. 1985. Imagic meaning and dative possessors in Spanish. Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 13: 1-14. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Tuggy, David. 2003. The literal-idiomatic Bible translation debate from the perspective of Cognitive Grammar. In Feyaerts, Kurt (ed.), The Bible Through Metaphor and Translation: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective. Oxford/New York: Peter Lang, 239-288.
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Mark. 2002. The cognitive study of art, language and literature. Poetics Today 23(1): 9-20.
Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-J?rg Schmid. 1996. Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/NewYork: Longman.
Van Besien, Fred, and Katja Pelsmaekers. 1988. The translation of metaphor. In Paul Nekeman (ed.), Proceedings of XIth World Congress of FIT (Translation, our Future). Maastricht: Euroterm, 140-146.
Van Den Broeck, Raymond. 1981. The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation. Poetics Today 2(4): 73-87.
Van Hoek, Karen. 1999. Cognitive linguistics. In Robert Wilson and Frank Keil (eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 134-135.
Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Translated by Anna R. K. Bosch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953/2001. Philosophical Investigations (3rd ed.). Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Wu, Qing. 2002. Interaction between language and the mind through translation: A perspective from profile/base organization. Meta 47(4): 532-563.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potential and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, RenéDirven & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 29-65.
Alvarez, Antonia. 1993. On translating metaphor. Meta 38(3): 479-490.
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London/New York: Routledge.
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer. 2000.“Introduction”. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies (3rd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Longman.
Bell, Roger T. 1998. Psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches. In Mona Baker (ed.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 185-190.
Bizup, Joseph, and Eugene Kintgen. 1993. The cognitive paradigm in literary studies. College English 55(8): 841-857.
Black, Max. 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. The atomization of meaning. Language 41: 555-573.
Brandt, Line, and Per Aage Brandt. 2005. Cognitive poetics and imagery. European Journal of English Studies 9(2): 117-130.
Brower, Reuben A. (ed.). 1966. On Translation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Wangdao (陈望道). 2001.《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive linguistics 10(1): 1-31.
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dagut, Menachem B. 1976. Can“metaphor”be translated? Babel 22(1): 21-33.
Dickins, James. 2005. Two models for metaphor translation. Target 17(2): 227-273.
Dirven, René. 1999. The cognitive motivation for adjective sequences in attribution. Journal of English Studies (1): 57-67.
Dirven, René, and Ralph P?rings (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, René, and Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dobrzynska, Teresa. 1995. Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 595-604.
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 2003. Cognitive linguistics. In Lynn Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Macmillan, 1-5.
Fawcett, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Scenes-and frames semantics. In Antonio Zampolli (ed.), Linguistics Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 55-81.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111-137.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222-254.
Fludernik, Monika, Donald C. Freeman, and Margaret H. Freeman. 1999. Metaphor and beyond: New cognitive developments. Poetics Today 20(3) 383-396.
Freeman, Margaret H. 2002. Momentary stays, exploding forces: A cognitive linguistic approach to the poetics of Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost. Journal of English Linguistics 30(1): 73-90.
Fung, Mary M.Y., and K.L. Kiu. Metaphor across language and culture. Babel 33(2): 84-106.
Gardner, Martin. 2000. The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gavins, Joanna, and Gerard Steen (eds.). 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Jody Bogdonovich. 1999. Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 14(1): 37-44.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Gerard Steen. 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givon, Talmy. 1994. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 47-76.
Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gross, Sabine. 1997. Cognitive readings; or, The disappearance of literature in the mind. Poetics Today 18(2): 271-297.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haiman, John. 1980a. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56: 515-540.
Haiman, John. 1980b. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50: 329-357.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781-819.
Hart, Elizabeth. 1995. Cognitive linguistics: The experiential dynamics of metaphor. Mosaic 28: 1-23.
Hilferty, Joseph. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An introductory sketch. Retrieved 10 May, 2005 from http://www.lingua.fil.ub.es/hilferty/coglx.pdf.
House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hu, Helen Chau. 2003. Cognitive-functional considerations in translating. IRAL 41: 107-130.
Hu, Qian. 1993. On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part III). Meta 38(2): 226-237.
Jakobson, Roman. 1966. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 232-239.
Janda, Laura. 2000. Cognitive linguistics. SLING2K Position Paper.
Janssen, Theo, and Gisela Redeker. 1999. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, Mark. 1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics 3(4): 345-366.
Jonasson, Kerstin. 2004.“Deverbalisation meets scenes-and-frames semantics”. Paper from Workshop in Marrakech, Mar. 28th-Apr. 4th. Retrieved June 10, 2005 from http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/expertise/JonassonMarrakech1.doc.
Ju, Zuchun (居祖纯). 2000.《高级汉英语篇翻译》.北京:清华大学出版社.
Kenner, Hugh. 1973. The Pound Era. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Knowles, Murray, and Rosamund Moon. 2006. Introducing Metaphor. London/New York: Routledge.
K?vecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
K?vecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation.
Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kussmaul, Paul. 2001. A cognitive framework for looking at creative mental processes. In Maeve Olohan (ed.), Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies—Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St Jerome, 57-72.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics (1): 39-74.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-251.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language 58(1): 22-80.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. An introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10: 1-40.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1): 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988a. A view of linguistic semantics. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49-90.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988b. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-161.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 2): Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 1-39.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages (《外国语》) 6: 2-24.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Leech, Geoffrey, and Mick Short. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Lefevere, André. (ed. & trans.). 1992. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London/New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, André. 1993. Introduction to Bistra Alexieva’s“A cognitive approach to translation equivalence”. In Palma Zlateva (ed.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives. London/New York: Routledge, 101-102.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1976. Review of Eugene A. Nida on semantics and translation. Language 52(4): 972-976.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Yunxing (李运兴). 2003.《英汉语篇翻译》(2nd ed.).北京:清华大学出版社.
Lin, Tongji (林同济). 1990.“从汉语词序看长句翻译”. In杨自俭,李瑞华(eds.),《英汉对比研究论文集》.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 391-403. First appeared 1980 in 《现代英语研究》(1): pp. n/a.
Lin, Yutang (林语堂). 1994.“论东西思想法之不同”. In刘慧英(ed.),《林语堂自传:自传拾遗》(vol. 1).南京:江苏文艺出版社.
López, Ana M.R. 2002. Applying Frame Semantics to translation: A practical example. Meta 47(3): 311-350.
McElhanon, Kenneth. 2005. From word to scenario: The influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation. Journal of Translation 1(3): 29-67.
Neubert, Albrecht. 1991. Models of translation. In Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 17-26.
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. London/New York: Prentice Hall.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Olohan, Maeve, and Christoph Z?hner. 1996. Translation theory and cognitive linguistics. In Tina Hickey and Jeny Williams (eds.), Language, Education and Society in a Changing World. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 143-150.
Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, Wenguo (潘文国). 1997/2002.《汉英语对比纲要》.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
Pan, Wenguo (潘文国). 2002.《字本位与汉语研究》.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Popova, Yanna. 2002. The figure in the carpet: Discovery or re-cognition. In Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper (eds.), Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49-72.
Peer, Willie van. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
Radden, Günter. 1992. The cognitive approach to natural language. In Martin Pütz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 513-541.
Reddy, Michael. 1979/1993. The conduit metaphor: A case frame conflict in our language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324.
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York/London: Oxford University Press.
Round, Nicholas. 1999. Developing a unified view of translation: Pragmatic and cognitive perspectives. Seminar talk at the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, The University of Manchester. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/ctis/activities/seminars/seminars-9899/.
Sch?ffner, Christina. 2004. Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1253-1269.
Semino, Elena, and Jonathan Culpeper (eds.). 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shao, Zhihong (邵志洪). 1997.《英汉语研究与对比》.上海:华东理工大学出版社.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 1994. R. W. Langacker的认知语法.《国外语言学》1: 12-20.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 1999.转指和转喻.《当代语言学》1: 3-15.
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 2000.“认知语法”的概括性.《外语教学与研究》1: 29-33.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1995. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach (rev. ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steen, Gerard. 1994. Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach. London/New York: Longman.
Stern, Josef . 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
Sullivan, John P., (ed.). 1970. Ezra Pound: A Critical Anthology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 1993. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2001. Is (cognitive) linguistics of any use for (literary) translation?. In Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, and Riitta J??skel?inen (eds), Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83-95.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2003. Iconicity and literary translation. In Wolfgang G. Müller and Olga Fischer (eds.), From Sign to Signing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 361-376.
Tabakowska, El?bieta. 2006. Iconicity. In Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola ?stman (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tai, J. H.-Y. (戴浩一). 1985. Temporal sequence in Chinese word order. In John Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 49-72.
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 625-649.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165-207.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsur, Reuven. 2003. Deixis and abstractions: Adventures in space and time. In Joanna Gavins and Gerard Steen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge, 41-54.
Tuggy, David. 1985. Imagic meaning and dative possessors in Spanish. Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 13: 1-14. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Tuggy, David. 2003. The literal-idiomatic Bible translation debate from the perspective of Cognitive Grammar. In Feyaerts, Kurt (ed.), The Bible Through Metaphor and Translation: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective. Oxford/New York: Peter Lang, 239-288.
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Mark. 2002. The cognitive study of art, language and literature. Poetics Today 23(1): 9-20.
Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-J?rg Schmid. 1996. Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/NewYork: Longman.
Van Besien, Fred, and Katja Pelsmaekers. 1988. The translation of metaphor. In Paul Nekeman (ed.), Proceedings of XIth World Congress of FIT (Translation, our Future). Maastricht: Euroterm, 140-146.
Van Den Broeck, Raymond. 1981. The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation. Poetics Today 2(4): 73-87.
Van Hoek, Karen. 1999. Cognitive linguistics. In Robert Wilson and Frank Keil (eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 134-135.
Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Translated by Anna R. K. Bosch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953/2001. Philosophical Investigations (3rd ed.). Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Wu, Qing. 2002. Interaction between language and the mind through translation: A perspective from profile/base organization. Meta 47(4): 532-563.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.