认知转喻的语用推理作用及语用功能分析
|
摘要
传统语言学认为转喻只是一种修辞手段,其功能主要在于间接指称或达到某种修辞效果。随着认知语言学的发展,人们普遍认识到转喻不仅仅是一种语言手段,更是一种认知和推理的过程,是人类的基本思维方式。语言中大量的转喻反映了人们普遍的思维模式,转喻思维对话语的理解起着极为重要的作用。目前国内外转喻研究主要是在认知领域,但在语用层面上却论述不多。因此本文将语用与转喻结合起来,从语用视角来研究转喻,主要探讨以下几个问题:1)转喻的认知机制是什么?2)转喻在言语行为中的推理作用是什么?3)转喻在思维和交际中的语用功能有哪些?
本文借助Langacker的参照点理论和Lakoff (1987)的理想认知模型来阐释转喻的各种生成关系和认知运作机制。通过对转喻运作机制的揭示,有助于转喻的语用推理作用及语用功能的研究。转喻的语用推理作用主要是根据Panther & Thornburg的言语行为转喻理论来分析。这一理论认为转喻是一种“自然推理图式”,在间接言语行为中,说话人可以用脚本中的一个成分段去激活和指代另一成分段或全部行为段,即用转喻来阐释间接言语行为。因此用转喻的视角研究间接言语行为可进一步补充和丰富语用学理论及相关的语言研究。通过研究表明转喻对语用推理有一定的解释力,并弥补了传统理论的不足。
转喻的语用功能主要以Sperber & Wilson的关联理论为框架探讨转喻在思维和交际中的语用功能。关联的交际原则认为每一个明示的交际行为都应设想它本身具有最佳关联性,话语具备最佳关联性的标准是看交际者是否用最小的认知努力取得了最佳的语境效果。转喻话语能够构建出与当时情景更加贴近的认知语境,帮助交际双方运用最小的认知努力来获得最大的语境效果。在此基础上,本文进一步提出转喻在思维和交际中的三种语用功能:修辞功能,社会文化的交际功能以及增强言语交际效率功能。
本项研究通过语用视角对转喻的语用推理的作用及语用功能分析得出,对转喻的理解应建立在这种人类共有的转喻性的思维及推理方式上。这种转喻性的认知、思维及推理方式大大提高了人们使用和理解语言的速度,可以用来很好地解释许多复杂的语言使用和话语理解中的问题。因此本研究不仅可以充实语用学理论,亦可以应用到外语教学,为外语教学或外语学习者提供一个新的角度。
Traditionally, metonymy was regarded only as a rhetorical device and it was mainly used to refer to something or to achieve certain rhetorical effects. With the development of cognitive linguistics, it is generally believed that metonymy is a cognitive process much more than a linguistic device; rather it is viewed as an important cognitive means, reasoning and inferential process, an essential means that human beings recognize the world of reality. A large number of metonymies in language reflect a common mode of thinking. Metonymic thought plays a crucial role in understanding utterances. Currently, metonymy has mainly been studied from the cognitive angle both at home and abroad. The pragmatic aspects have received relatively little attention. This thesis explores cognitive metonymy from pragmatic perspective and tries to bridge the gap between pragmatic and cognitive respects, and mainly probe into three research question: 1) what is the mechanism of metonymy? 2) what are the roles that cognitive metonymy play in pragmatic inference? 3) what are the pragmatic functions of metonymy in utterance interpretation?
This study make use of the theory of Langacker?s reference point and idealized cognitive models (ICMs) proposed by Lakoff (1987) which are very helpful for us to understand metonymy-producing relationships and the cognitive mechanisms of metonymy. A thorough revelation of the operation mechanisms contributes to this study. This thesis explores the role of metonymic inference in conversation, especially in the speech acts according to theory of speech act metonymy proposed by Panther & Thornburg. As they claim that metonymies are“natural inference schemata”in indirect speech act and each component in the scenario can metonymically stand for other components, or for the whole scenario through which can better explain the indirect speech act. The author?s analyses of pragmatic inference are based on the cognitive theory of metonymy with the belief that the shortcomings of the traditional approach can be overcome by means of human metonymic thinking mode.
Taking Relevance Theory as its framework, the present study tries to explore and discuss the pragmatic functions of metonymy. According to the principle of relevance,“every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance.”A linguistic expression is optimally relevant if it produces maximal contextual effect with a minimum of processing effort. Metonymy is an efficient tool to provide maximal contextual effects with minimal processing efforts. Based on RT theory, the thesis further proposes three pragmatic function of metonymy: producing rhetorical effects, communicating social and cultural information and enhancing communicative efficiency.
The thesis proposes that the understanding of metonymy relies heavily on our metonymic ways of thinking and reasoning. Moreover, it provides better explanations for the reason why people draw conversational implicatures quickly in dialogues. In this sense, the study concludes that metonymy is not only an economical way of expressing, but also a very powerful and efficient tool for resolving difficult problems in communication. It intends to provide a new perspective for those who are engaged in the foreign language learning and teaching.
本文借助Langacker的参照点理论和Lakoff (1987)的理想认知模型来阐释转喻的各种生成关系和认知运作机制。通过对转喻运作机制的揭示,有助于转喻的语用推理作用及语用功能的研究。转喻的语用推理作用主要是根据Panther & Thornburg的言语行为转喻理论来分析。这一理论认为转喻是一种“自然推理图式”,在间接言语行为中,说话人可以用脚本中的一个成分段去激活和指代另一成分段或全部行为段,即用转喻来阐释间接言语行为。因此用转喻的视角研究间接言语行为可进一步补充和丰富语用学理论及相关的语言研究。通过研究表明转喻对语用推理有一定的解释力,并弥补了传统理论的不足。
转喻的语用功能主要以Sperber & Wilson的关联理论为框架探讨转喻在思维和交际中的语用功能。关联的交际原则认为每一个明示的交际行为都应设想它本身具有最佳关联性,话语具备最佳关联性的标准是看交际者是否用最小的认知努力取得了最佳的语境效果。转喻话语能够构建出与当时情景更加贴近的认知语境,帮助交际双方运用最小的认知努力来获得最大的语境效果。在此基础上,本文进一步提出转喻在思维和交际中的三种语用功能:修辞功能,社会文化的交际功能以及增强言语交际效率功能。
本项研究通过语用视角对转喻的语用推理的作用及语用功能分析得出,对转喻的理解应建立在这种人类共有的转喻性的思维及推理方式上。这种转喻性的认知、思维及推理方式大大提高了人们使用和理解语言的速度,可以用来很好地解释许多复杂的语言使用和话语理解中的问题。因此本研究不仅可以充实语用学理论,亦可以应用到外语教学,为外语教学或外语学习者提供一个新的角度。
Traditionally, metonymy was regarded only as a rhetorical device and it was mainly used to refer to something or to achieve certain rhetorical effects. With the development of cognitive linguistics, it is generally believed that metonymy is a cognitive process much more than a linguistic device; rather it is viewed as an important cognitive means, reasoning and inferential process, an essential means that human beings recognize the world of reality. A large number of metonymies in language reflect a common mode of thinking. Metonymic thought plays a crucial role in understanding utterances. Currently, metonymy has mainly been studied from the cognitive angle both at home and abroad. The pragmatic aspects have received relatively little attention. This thesis explores cognitive metonymy from pragmatic perspective and tries to bridge the gap between pragmatic and cognitive respects, and mainly probe into three research question: 1) what is the mechanism of metonymy? 2) what are the roles that cognitive metonymy play in pragmatic inference? 3) what are the pragmatic functions of metonymy in utterance interpretation?
This study make use of the theory of Langacker?s reference point and idealized cognitive models (ICMs) proposed by Lakoff (1987) which are very helpful for us to understand metonymy-producing relationships and the cognitive mechanisms of metonymy. A thorough revelation of the operation mechanisms contributes to this study. This thesis explores the role of metonymic inference in conversation, especially in the speech acts according to theory of speech act metonymy proposed by Panther & Thornburg. As they claim that metonymies are“natural inference schemata”in indirect speech act and each component in the scenario can metonymically stand for other components, or for the whole scenario through which can better explain the indirect speech act. The author?s analyses of pragmatic inference are based on the cognitive theory of metonymy with the belief that the shortcomings of the traditional approach can be overcome by means of human metonymic thinking mode.
Taking Relevance Theory as its framework, the present study tries to explore and discuss the pragmatic functions of metonymy. According to the principle of relevance,“every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance.”A linguistic expression is optimally relevant if it produces maximal contextual effect with a minimum of processing effort. Metonymy is an efficient tool to provide maximal contextual effects with minimal processing efforts. Based on RT theory, the thesis further proposes three pragmatic function of metonymy: producing rhetorical effects, communicating social and cultural information and enhancing communicative efficiency.
The thesis proposes that the understanding of metonymy relies heavily on our metonymic ways of thinking and reasoning. Moreover, it provides better explanations for the reason why people draw conversational implicatures quickly in dialogues. In this sense, the study concludes that metonymy is not only an economical way of expressing, but also a very powerful and efficient tool for resolving difficult problems in communication. It intends to provide a new perspective for those who are engaged in the foreign language learning and teaching.
引文
1. Aristotle. (1927). The poetics. English Translation, J. H. Freese. London: Heinemann.
2. The American Heritage Dictionary. (1994). Boston/New York/London: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In: A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In: K-U Panther&L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 80-102.
7. Blank, A . (1999). Co-presence and succession: A cognitive typology of metonymy. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
8. Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 129.
9. Cacciari, C. & S. Glucksberg. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In: M.Gernsbacher(ed.). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,447-477.
10. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
12. Dirven, R.& R. Porings. (2002). (eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
13. Feyaerts, (2000). Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymy is hierarchies. In: Antonio Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 59-78.
14. Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In: Klaus-Uwe Panther& G. Radden. (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 61-76.
15. Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language & understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. Cognitive Linguistics, (13): 323-340.
17. Gove, P. & Webster, M. (2002). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
18. Grice, H.P .(1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts . New York: Academic Press,41-58.
19. Hernandez, L. P& de Mendoza, F. J. R. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, (34), 259-284
20. Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Jakobson, R. (2000). The Metaphoric and metonymic poles. In: Dirven, R.&R. Porings. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 41-47.
22. Koch, Peter. (1999). Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 139-167.
23. Kovecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 37-77.
24. Kovecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 17-60.
25. Lakoff ,G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
26. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.(1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
28. Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 198-201.
29. Levinson, (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Levinson, (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: the MTT Press.
31. Matsui, (1998). Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. In: Carston & Seiji (eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 123- 159.
32. Nerlich, D. & Todd. (1999).“Mummy, I like being a sandwich”: Metonymy in language acquisition. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 361-383.
33. Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
34. Niemeier, S. (2000). Straight from the heart metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In: Barcelona, A. (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
35. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. (2001). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
36. Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics , 30,755-769.
37. Panther, K. & Gunter Radden. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
38. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy on English grammar. In: Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 215-231.
39. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
40. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg .(2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction.Metaphorik. De, 6, 91-116.
41. Pauwels, P. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 255-274.
42. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7,532-547.
43. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Perez Hernandez, Lorena. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
44. Samovar, L. & L. A. Stefani. (1998). Communication between cultures. Brooks/Cole: Thomson Learning.
45. Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon Garrod.(1981). Understanding written language: Exploring in comprehension beyond the sentence. New York: Wiley.
46. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Vol.3) .New York: Academic Press, 92-123.
47. Seto, Ken-ichi. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 91-120.
48. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. (2001). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson.(2006). A deflationary account of metaphors. In: R. Gibbs (ed.), Handbook of metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Stefanowitch, A. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In: K-U Panther&L. Thornburg (eds.) Metonymy and pragmatics inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 105-125.
51. Taylor, J. R.(1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: OUP.
52. Thornburg, L. & K. Panther, (1997). Speech act metonymies. In: Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda Waugh, ( eds.). Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 205-219.
53. Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid, (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. New York: Addition Wesley Longman Limited.
54.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 1997.
55.辞海[M].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1999.
56.何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
57.蒋勇.特别概念结构的借代功能[J].外国语, 2003 (6): 30-37.
58.江晓红.认知语用研究:词汇转喻的理解[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2009.
59.李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释[M].上海:东华大学出版社, 2004.
60.李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
61.刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语, 2002(1): 62-70.
62.熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
63.赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
64.张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语, 2002(4): 46-52.
65.张辉,承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究, 2002(6): 15-19,32.
66.左焕琪.中国外语教育展望[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
2. The American Heritage Dictionary. (1994). Boston/New York/London: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In: A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In: K-U Panther&L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 80-102.
7. Blank, A . (1999). Co-presence and succession: A cognitive typology of metonymy. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
8. Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 129.
9. Cacciari, C. & S. Glucksberg. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In: M.Gernsbacher(ed.). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,447-477.
10. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
12. Dirven, R.& R. Porings. (2002). (eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
13. Feyaerts, (2000). Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymy is hierarchies. In: Antonio Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 59-78.
14. Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In: Klaus-Uwe Panther& G. Radden. (eds.). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 61-76.
15. Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language & understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. Cognitive Linguistics, (13): 323-340.
17. Gove, P. & Webster, M. (2002). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
18. Grice, H.P .(1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts . New York: Academic Press,41-58.
19. Hernandez, L. P& de Mendoza, F. J. R. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, (34), 259-284
20. Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Jakobson, R. (2000). The Metaphoric and metonymic poles. In: Dirven, R.&R. Porings. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 41-47.
22. Koch, Peter. (1999). Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 139-167.
23. Kovecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 37-77.
24. Kovecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 17-60.
25. Lakoff ,G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
26. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.(1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
28. Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 198-201.
29. Levinson, (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Levinson, (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: the MTT Press.
31. Matsui, (1998). Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. In: Carston & Seiji (eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 123- 159.
32. Nerlich, D. & Todd. (1999).“Mummy, I like being a sandwich”: Metonymy in language acquisition. In: K-U Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 361-383.
33. Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
34. Niemeier, S. (2000). Straight from the heart metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In: Barcelona, A. (ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
35. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. (2001). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
36. Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics , 30,755-769.
37. Panther, K. & Gunter Radden. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
38. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy on English grammar. In: Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 215-231.
39. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
40. Panther, K. & L. Thornburg .(2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction.Metaphorik. De, 6, 91-116.
41. Pauwels, P. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 255-274.
42. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7,532-547.
43. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Perez Hernandez, Lorena. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
44. Samovar, L. & L. A. Stefani. (1998). Communication between cultures. Brooks/Cole: Thomson Learning.
45. Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon Garrod.(1981). Understanding written language: Exploring in comprehension beyond the sentence. New York: Wiley.
46. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Vol.3) .New York: Academic Press, 92-123.
47. Seto, Ken-ichi. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: K-U Panther&G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 91-120.
48. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. (2001). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson.(2006). A deflationary account of metaphors. In: R. Gibbs (ed.), Handbook of metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Stefanowitch, A. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In: K-U Panther&L. Thornburg (eds.) Metonymy and pragmatics inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 105-125.
51. Taylor, J. R.(1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: OUP.
52. Thornburg, L. & K. Panther, (1997). Speech act metonymies. In: Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda Waugh, ( eds.). Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 205-219.
53. Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid, (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. New York: Addition Wesley Longman Limited.
54.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 1997.
55.辞海[M].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1999.
56.何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
57.蒋勇.特别概念结构的借代功能[J].外国语, 2003 (6): 30-37.
58.江晓红.认知语用研究:词汇转喻的理解[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2009.
59.李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释[M].上海:东华大学出版社, 2004.
60.李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
61.刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语, 2002(1): 62-70.
62.熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
63.赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
64.张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语, 2002(4): 46-52.
65.张辉,承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究, 2002(6): 15-19,32.
66.左焕琪.中国外语教育展望[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.