人体词语语义转移的认知研究
|
摘要
一般来说,人类的认识活动遵循着由近及远、由简到繁、由熟悉到陌生、由实体到非实体、由形象到抽象的规律逐步展开。由于人的身体与人关系最近,最易被人感知,在生活、劳动和交际中最直观、最直白和最直接。在经济和明晰动因的作用下,人类往往从认识自身开始认识世界,人体及其各个部位和器官便成了人类认知、体验和感受整个世界的“体认”基础。正是基于人体的感知、运动、物质、社会和文化等诸多体验,人类才建构了认识世界的基本范畴和概念。人体部位及其器官是人类认知的生理基础和最基本的参照点,以它们的身体体验为主体内容研究人类的心智和认知,是当前认知语言学的一大研究热点,是认知语言学界基本的研究方法和工具,印证了体验哲学观,具有深厚的科学和哲学基础。
而在认识世界的过程中,人类所采用的基本认知手段便是隐喻和转喻。隐喻和转喻都是语义建构的基本类型,以经验为理据。在目前国内外隐喻和转喻的研究中,以人体部位词为研究对象的认知研究是一大热点,已经呈现出多维度、多层次、多学科的特点,主要运用概念隐喻(较少用转喻理论)研究某个(或多个)人体部位；有的从宏观和微观角度对英汉某个(或多个)人体部位的隐喻开展对比研究；有的运用意象图式、空间合成等认知语言学理论,综合和系统性地研究人体隐喻；还有的从文化角度研究人体部位,揭示了人体词背后蕴含的深层文化内涵。
国内对英汉人体部位词的认知研究比较丰富、多样、广泛,这不仅促使隐喻、转喻等认知理论不断深化,而且推动了英汉对比的研究。但此领域辅之于语料的系统和全面性的认知与对比研究依然匮乏,大体存在以下几点不足：目前的研究在探求认知相通性的途径方面仍显单一、单调,大多凭借乏味的分类和简单的归纳,缺乏一定的创新；目前研究普遍存在的一大问题是重隐喻轻转喻的现象,常常把转喻直接并入隐喻中,模糊了隐喻和转喻之间的界限,同时对人体部位词隐喻和转喻的分类模棱两可或稍显凌乱,没有一个较为统一的划分标准；目前的研究对于人体部位的认知分析还并不全面,大多把注意力聚焦在几大主要人体部位,而许多部位很少关注或未被谈及,如“耳、颈、臂、眉”以及除“心”之外的内脏器官,同时对于人体词的认知分析并不系统化,对它们突显度的差异以及相互的关联认知还不充分,这就为全面和系统性的认知研究预留了空间；目前研究多集中于人体词的范畴化研究和描写,而对于具体运作机制很少系统的涉及,也就是未解释人体词语的词义隐喻或转喻是如何生成的。
本论文从认知角度对英汉人体部位词进行深入、系统和全面性的对比研究,本课题的目标就是结合认知语言学理论,包括映射理论、意象图式和ICM理论,以及隐喻和转喻连续统的概念,’首先从单个的人体部位词入手,逐个描写英汉人体部位词的语义转移,以构建每个人体词连续统一的认知网络,同时通过逐一对比从语言、文化、自然环境等角度解释英汉人体词语义转移的差异；然后采取归纳的方法,对所有英汉人体词语按照所在的部位进行语义转移及词义取象的数量统计,进行定量定性分析,以期发现英汉人体部位突显度的经验性规律和差异；最后,对英汉人体词语义的隐喻性和转喻性概念进行汇总,开展由点到面的整体对比研究,从跨文化角度对语义转移的差异进行深层剖析,以全方位、多层次和多维度展现英汉民族的认知相通性和文化相对性。为了顺利实现以上目标,本论文选取的语料,取自权威、真实、可靠和稳固的词典语料,涉及与人体部位相关的词汇、短语和习语等多样的表达形式,而未选取文学等语料,是因为常规化、约定俗成的隐喻和转喻表达,才体现最活泼、最牢固、最有效和最有力的认知。
本文在英汉人体词语义转移系统的构建过程中,系统性地发现以下总体特征：
1.英语借助容器的概念,发生隐转喻的互动,而在容器概念方面中文比较薄弱；
2.汉语人体名词转化为量词的现象比较普遍；
3.很多英语人体名词可以转喻为动词,而汉语的人体名词本身不具有转喻动作义,、多与表示动作意义的语素组合成“动作+人体词”或“人体词+动作”的复合动词结构,可见英语人体名转动现象比汉语更加频繁和普遍；
4.汉语中有同称词的人体词语语义转移数量很多,这是由于一个词的语义负荷太多时,往往出现同称词承担部分负荷的倾向。这些同称词具有一定的角色分工,其中有一个的词义取象侧重形貌特征,往往会变成量词；
5.英汉语中头部词语、肢体词语和内脏器官词语的语义转移数量按由多到少的顺序递减。头部词语以显著的形貌、突出的位置和不可或缺的功能而突显度最高，其中功能特征在英民族思维中突显度更高,而形貌特征在汉民族思维中突显度更高；英语中的头部和肢体词语的语义转移数量非常接近,而汉语中头部和肢体词语的语义转移数量差距比较大,这都可以通过词义取象的侧重点进行阐释；由于内脏器官是隐性的、不可见的,功能比较复杂,相对“显性的”头部和肢体部位更难把握,所以突显度最低,大多产生性格、情感的功能义；
6.在英汉语中不同的人体词语突显度也不同。位置特征是最具代表性的头部部位突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量基本一致；同时功能特征对于突显度的衡量起到一定的辅助作用。“头/head”集“有界”、“完形强”、“(形体)大”、“功能性”、“互动性”等突显特征于一身,而成为突显度最高的部位；相比,“眼/eye”和“鼻/nose",尽管形体小,但具有“有界”、“直接”、“功能性”、“互动性”等特征；易被聚焦成为侧面,因而突显度非常高；以上三个部位共有的特征是所处位置高,而相对来说位置稍低的“脸/face”和“嘴/mouth"因为有“完形强”、“功能性”和“互动性”等特征而突显度稍逊之；“耳/ear”尽管“功能性”和“互动性”较强,但由于位置不突出,“形体小”,感知上“非直接”,而突显度相对较低；由于“牙/tooth、舌/tongue、唇/tip”多被包容在嘴部器官的整体感知中,由于完形相对“嘴/mouth"弱而突显度很低；“眉/brow"尽管所处位置很高,但“功能性”、“互动性”很弱,所以突显度也很低。英汉语不同的是,汉语的“脸”和“眉”由于负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象,处于汉文化的“中心地位”,因而突显度比英语对应的‘'face"和‘'brow"都要高；
功能特征是最具代表性的肢体部位突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量一致；同时,位置特征对于突显度的衡量起到了一定的辅助作用,所以在肢体部位中,基于位置特征发生语义转移的“手hand"、‘背/back'’、“脚/foot",基于功能特征的词义取象最多,它们的突显度相对更高。其中“手/hand"集“有界”、“直接”、“功能性”和“互动性”等突显特征于一身,而成为突显度最高的：肢体部位；“背/back"以“完形强”和“形体大”的突显特征,而“脚/foot"以“功能性”和“互动性”较强的突显特征而突显度逊之；而未以位置特征发生语义转移的“臂/arm”和“颈/neck",基于功能特征的词义取象比较少,它们的突显度最低。同时,汉语的“脚”和英文"back"由于负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象,因而突显度分别比"foot"和“背”都要高；
功能特征是最具代表性的内脏器官突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量一致。在汉语中,“心”的突显度最高,“肠、胆”的突显度次之,其它器官突显度低；英语中,"heart"(心)的突显度最高,“gut”(肠)的突显度次之,其它器官突显度低。汉语的“胆”之所以比英语的"gall"更突显,是其负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象；
7.英汉人体词语语义的隐喻性包括人体部位到“具体事物、空间、时间和容器”的隐喻；人体词语语义的转喻性包括人体部位到“人、情感、生产物和感知”的转喻。
Generally speaking, human beings conduct their cognitive activities in accordance with the following rule:getting to know the world in the sequence from the near to the distant, from the simple to the complex, from the familiar to the unknown, and from the concrete to the abstract. As the human body is man's most familiar part with the closest relationship attached, it tends to be vulnerable to man's perception and understanding, and thus become the most explicit, impressive, and immediate part in man's life, labor and communication. It is due to motivations of economy and informativeness that man is most likely to start from his own body to cognize the world, regarding the body parts and organs as the experiential basis for him to know, experience and perceive the whole world. Only with the bodily experiences varying from perceptual, motional, physical, and social to cultural experiences, can man afford to construct the basic categories and concepts of cognizing the world. As human body parts and organs are the physiological foundation and the most fundamental reference point of man's cognition, it goes without saying that their bodily experiences are targeted as the basic research tool and instrument for man's mind and cognition, as a widely-recognized hot topic in the current field of cognitive linguistics, providing proof for the experiential philosophical outlook, and endowed with solid scientific and philosophical foundation.
In the course of cognizing the world, man mainly applies two cognitive instruments:metaphor and metonymy, both motivated by experiences and incorporated into the semantic construction. Among the current studies on metaphor and metonymy both at home and abroad, the cognitive study into human body-part terms is in full swing, featuring multi-dimension, full-scale and cross-discipline. It mainly covers four aspects:overwhelmingly applying theories of conceptual metaphor (scarcely conceptual metonymy) to one certain body part (or a few body parts); conducting English and Chinese comparative studies on one certain body part (or a few body parts) from the angle of metaphor at the micro or macro level; applying image schema, space blending and other cognitive linguistics theories to comprehensively and systematically study human metaphor; and approaching human body parts from the cultural perspective to unveil the cultural connotations underlying those human body-part terms.
The current domestic cognitive studies on English and Chinese body-part terms, achieving remarkable abundance, diversity and popularity, not only promotes development of the metaphor and metonymy theories in full depth, but also accelerates the comparative studies between Chinese and English. Nevertheless, this filed still lacks the systematic and comprehensive cognitive and comparative studies aided by corpus. Some prominent weak points of the current studies are listed as follows:the current studies seem quite monotonous and stereotyped in the approach to exploration of cognitive universality, which largely depends on boring classification and rash induction, substantially devoid of innovation; the current studies are generally plagued by one prevalent problem that studies on metonymy are overwhelmingly overshadowed by those on metaphor by incorporating metonymy into the domain of metaphor, or blurring the boundary of metaphor and metonymy, accompanied by the problem that the current classification of human metaphor and metonymy appears fairly ambiguous or disordered without being governed by one unified standard; the current cognitive studies on human body-part items remain challenged in the incomplete coverage of the study objects for most emphasis has been paid to a few main body parts while many other body parts have drawn little or no attention, such as "ear, neck, arm, brow" and "viscera" except "heart". Furthermore, the current cognitive analysis on the body-part terms is not systematic, with insufficient attention to differences in their cognitive salience and to their association, accordingly reserving room for comprehensive and systematic cognitive studies; the current studies mostly highlight description and categorization of human body-part terms while cares little about the specific operational mechanism, that is to say, unable to systematically explain how meanings of human body-part terms are metaphorized or metonymized.
This dissertation is a systematic in-depth and all-around comparative study on English and Chinese body-part terms from the cognitive perspective. By combining cognitive linguistic theories, including mapping, image schema and ICM, and the continuum concept of metaphor and metonymy, it constructs unified and continuous cognitive network of each English and Chinese body-part term through analysis on its meaning transference, exploring the differences in English and Chinese meaning transference from the angles of language, culture, natural environment, etc; then the dissertation conducts a quantitative and qualitative analysis on meaning transference and semantic image exaction by taking a statistic approach to different body-part terms in order to explore the experiential rule and difference in cognitive salience of body parts in English and Chinese; finally, the dissertation collects the semantic metaphorical and metonymical conceptual properties of the English and Chinese body-part terms for macro comparative studies, to probe into the differences of meaning transference from the cross-cultural perspective, and to represent cognitive universality and cultural relativity of English and Chinese nations at an all-around level and dimension. In order to smoothly achieve those goals, this dissertation will select corpus from authoritative, authentic, reliable and stable dictionaries instead of literary and other sources, covering a wide variety of expressions from words, phrases and idioms related to body parts, because routinized and conventionalized metaphoric and metonymic expressions best embody the most alive and most deeply entrenched, efficient and powerful cognition.
In the course of constructing English and Chinese meaning transference systems of body-part terms, the dissertation systematically reveals the following holistic traits:
1. English tends to borrow the concept of containment to activate interaction between metaphor and metonymy, while Chinese is relatively weak in application of containment.
2. Transference of body-part terms from noun to quantifier in Chinese is more prevalent than that in English.
3. Quite a number of English body-part terms can be metonymized into verbs by themselves while the Chinese equivalents fail to do so but mostly to be combined with action morphemes to form the compound verb structure——"action+body-part terms" or "body-part terms+action". Accordingly, shift of body-part terms from noun to verb in English is more frequent and prevalent than that in Chinese.
4. In Chinese a body-part term with different appellations features a high amount of meaning transference, caused by historically excessive meaning loads of one word and assignation part of meaning loads to another word. Consequently those appellations have certain division in role, with semantic image exaction of one appellation highlighting physical features, tending to become a quantifier.
5. The quantities of meaning transference of body-part terms decrease successively from terms of the head to terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera. The head terms feature the highest salience with striking appearance, prominent location and indispensible function, in which the function features a higher salience in the English nation while the appearance and location feature a higher salience in the Chinese nation; the quantities of meaning transference of head terms are very close to those of trunk terms in English, while the gap between the two in Chinese is relatively high, which can be explained by the emphasis in semantic image exaction; because the viscera are covert, invisible, and too complicated in function, more difficult to perceive than more overt parts of the head and the trunk, thus they feature the lowest salience, with meanings mostly transferred to character and emotion.
6. Different body parts feature distinct cognitive salience in both Chinese and English. Location, whose amount basically conforms to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the head parts; while function also plays a supporting role in measurement of salience. In both Chinese and English, "tou/head" is the most salient part, integrating "bounded", "good gestalt", "more", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; Likewise, "yan/eye" and "bi/nose", though smaller in shape, are also highly salient and prone to becoming the "profile", with "bounded", "immediate", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; the above-mentioned three parts are located high, while "lian/face" and "zui/mouth" located relatively lower are fairly salient, with "good gestalt", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; in spite of considerably strong "functional" and "interactional" features, "er/ear" is poorly salient, for being inconspicuously located, "less" in shape, "non-immediate" in perception; largely incorporated into the gestalt perception of the mouth organ, "ya/tooth", "she/tongue" and "chun/lip" feature a quite low salience with a poorer gestalt than "mouth"; though located high, "mei/brow" is poorly salient with weak "functional" and "interactional" salient features. In contrast, "lian" and "mei" in Chinese, with profound cultural loads and "stereotyped" images, situated in the "center" of Chinese culture, both feature a higher salience than English equivalents of "face" and "brow";
Function, whose amount basically conforms to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the trunk parts; while location also plays a supporting role in measurement of salience. Among the trunk parts, "shou/hand", "bei/back" and "jiao/foot" with meaning transference based on location, which feature the higher number of semantic image exaction based on function, are the more salient parts. Among the three parts, "shou/hand" is the most salient part, integrating "bounded", "immediate", "functional" and "interactional" salient features, followed by "bei/back" with salient features of "good gestalt", "more" and "jiao/foot" with strong "functional" and "interactional" salient features; "bi/arm" and "jing/neck" which fail to transfer meanings based on location, and have few semantic image exaction based on function, are poorly salient. On the other hand, "jiao" in Chinese and "back" in English feature a higher salience than the respective equivalent of "foot" and "bei" for its profound culture load and "stereotyped" image.
Function, whose amount is parallel to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the viscera parts. In Chinese, "xin" is the most salient part, followed by "chang" and "dan", and other parts poorly salient; in English, "heart" is the most salient, followed by "gut", and other parts poorly salient. "dan" in Chinese features a higher salience than its English equivalent of "gall" for its profound culture load and "stereotyped" image.
7. The semantic metaphorical property of body-part terms in English and Chinese embodies metaphors mapped from body parts to "inanimate objects, space, time and container"; while the semantic metonymical property of body-part terms manifests itself in extension of the nominatum of body-part terms to "man, emotion, product and perception".
而在认识世界的过程中,人类所采用的基本认知手段便是隐喻和转喻。隐喻和转喻都是语义建构的基本类型,以经验为理据。在目前国内外隐喻和转喻的研究中,以人体部位词为研究对象的认知研究是一大热点,已经呈现出多维度、多层次、多学科的特点,主要运用概念隐喻(较少用转喻理论)研究某个(或多个)人体部位；有的从宏观和微观角度对英汉某个(或多个)人体部位的隐喻开展对比研究；有的运用意象图式、空间合成等认知语言学理论,综合和系统性地研究人体隐喻；还有的从文化角度研究人体部位,揭示了人体词背后蕴含的深层文化内涵。
国内对英汉人体部位词的认知研究比较丰富、多样、广泛,这不仅促使隐喻、转喻等认知理论不断深化,而且推动了英汉对比的研究。但此领域辅之于语料的系统和全面性的认知与对比研究依然匮乏,大体存在以下几点不足：目前的研究在探求认知相通性的途径方面仍显单一、单调,大多凭借乏味的分类和简单的归纳,缺乏一定的创新；目前研究普遍存在的一大问题是重隐喻轻转喻的现象,常常把转喻直接并入隐喻中,模糊了隐喻和转喻之间的界限,同时对人体部位词隐喻和转喻的分类模棱两可或稍显凌乱,没有一个较为统一的划分标准；目前的研究对于人体部位的认知分析还并不全面,大多把注意力聚焦在几大主要人体部位,而许多部位很少关注或未被谈及,如“耳、颈、臂、眉”以及除“心”之外的内脏器官,同时对于人体词的认知分析并不系统化,对它们突显度的差异以及相互的关联认知还不充分,这就为全面和系统性的认知研究预留了空间；目前研究多集中于人体词的范畴化研究和描写,而对于具体运作机制很少系统的涉及,也就是未解释人体词语的词义隐喻或转喻是如何生成的。
本论文从认知角度对英汉人体部位词进行深入、系统和全面性的对比研究,本课题的目标就是结合认知语言学理论,包括映射理论、意象图式和ICM理论,以及隐喻和转喻连续统的概念,’首先从单个的人体部位词入手,逐个描写英汉人体部位词的语义转移,以构建每个人体词连续统一的认知网络,同时通过逐一对比从语言、文化、自然环境等角度解释英汉人体词语义转移的差异；然后采取归纳的方法,对所有英汉人体词语按照所在的部位进行语义转移及词义取象的数量统计,进行定量定性分析,以期发现英汉人体部位突显度的经验性规律和差异；最后,对英汉人体词语义的隐喻性和转喻性概念进行汇总,开展由点到面的整体对比研究,从跨文化角度对语义转移的差异进行深层剖析,以全方位、多层次和多维度展现英汉民族的认知相通性和文化相对性。为了顺利实现以上目标,本论文选取的语料,取自权威、真实、可靠和稳固的词典语料,涉及与人体部位相关的词汇、短语和习语等多样的表达形式,而未选取文学等语料,是因为常规化、约定俗成的隐喻和转喻表达,才体现最活泼、最牢固、最有效和最有力的认知。
本文在英汉人体词语义转移系统的构建过程中,系统性地发现以下总体特征：
1.英语借助容器的概念,发生隐转喻的互动,而在容器概念方面中文比较薄弱；
2.汉语人体名词转化为量词的现象比较普遍；
3.很多英语人体名词可以转喻为动词,而汉语的人体名词本身不具有转喻动作义,、多与表示动作意义的语素组合成“动作+人体词”或“人体词+动作”的复合动词结构,可见英语人体名转动现象比汉语更加频繁和普遍；
4.汉语中有同称词的人体词语语义转移数量很多,这是由于一个词的语义负荷太多时,往往出现同称词承担部分负荷的倾向。这些同称词具有一定的角色分工,其中有一个的词义取象侧重形貌特征,往往会变成量词；
5.英汉语中头部词语、肢体词语和内脏器官词语的语义转移数量按由多到少的顺序递减。头部词语以显著的形貌、突出的位置和不可或缺的功能而突显度最高，其中功能特征在英民族思维中突显度更高,而形貌特征在汉民族思维中突显度更高；英语中的头部和肢体词语的语义转移数量非常接近,而汉语中头部和肢体词语的语义转移数量差距比较大,这都可以通过词义取象的侧重点进行阐释；由于内脏器官是隐性的、不可见的,功能比较复杂,相对“显性的”头部和肢体部位更难把握,所以突显度最低,大多产生性格、情感的功能义；
6.在英汉语中不同的人体词语突显度也不同。位置特征是最具代表性的头部部位突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量基本一致；同时功能特征对于突显度的衡量起到一定的辅助作用。“头/head”集“有界”、“完形强”、“(形体)大”、“功能性”、“互动性”等突显特征于一身,而成为突显度最高的部位；相比,“眼/eye”和“鼻/nose",尽管形体小,但具有“有界”、“直接”、“功能性”、“互动性”等特征；易被聚焦成为侧面,因而突显度非常高；以上三个部位共有的特征是所处位置高,而相对来说位置稍低的“脸/face”和“嘴/mouth"因为有“完形强”、“功能性”和“互动性”等特征而突显度稍逊之；“耳/ear”尽管“功能性”和“互动性”较强,但由于位置不突出,“形体小”,感知上“非直接”,而突显度相对较低；由于“牙/tooth、舌/tongue、唇/tip”多被包容在嘴部器官的整体感知中,由于完形相对“嘴/mouth"弱而突显度很低；“眉/brow"尽管所处位置很高,但“功能性”、“互动性”很弱,所以突显度也很低。英汉语不同的是,汉语的“脸”和“眉”由于负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象,处于汉文化的“中心地位”,因而突显度比英语对应的‘'face"和‘'brow"都要高；
功能特征是最具代表性的肢体部位突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量一致；同时,位置特征对于突显度的衡量起到了一定的辅助作用,所以在肢体部位中,基于位置特征发生语义转移的“手hand"、‘背/back'’、“脚/foot",基于功能特征的词义取象最多,它们的突显度相对更高。其中“手/hand"集“有界”、“直接”、“功能性”和“互动性”等突显特征于一身,而成为突显度最高的：肢体部位；“背/back"以“完形强”和“形体大”的突显特征,而“脚/foot"以“功能性”和“互动性”较强的突显特征而突显度逊之；而未以位置特征发生语义转移的“臂/arm”和“颈/neck",基于功能特征的词义取象比较少,它们的突显度最低。同时,汉语的“脚”和英文"back"由于负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象,因而突显度分别比"foot"和“背”都要高；
功能特征是最具代表性的内脏器官突显度的衡量指标,它的多少与相应的语义转移数量一致。在汉语中,“心”的突显度最高,“肠、胆”的突显度次之,其它器官突显度低；英语中,"heart"(心)的突显度最高,“gut”(肠)的突显度次之,其它器官突显度低。汉语的“胆”之所以比英语的"gall"更突显,是其负载着深厚的文化色彩,具有“陈规”的形象；
7.英汉人体词语语义的隐喻性包括人体部位到“具体事物、空间、时间和容器”的隐喻；人体词语语义的转喻性包括人体部位到“人、情感、生产物和感知”的转喻。
Generally speaking, human beings conduct their cognitive activities in accordance with the following rule:getting to know the world in the sequence from the near to the distant, from the simple to the complex, from the familiar to the unknown, and from the concrete to the abstract. As the human body is man's most familiar part with the closest relationship attached, it tends to be vulnerable to man's perception and understanding, and thus become the most explicit, impressive, and immediate part in man's life, labor and communication. It is due to motivations of economy and informativeness that man is most likely to start from his own body to cognize the world, regarding the body parts and organs as the experiential basis for him to know, experience and perceive the whole world. Only with the bodily experiences varying from perceptual, motional, physical, and social to cultural experiences, can man afford to construct the basic categories and concepts of cognizing the world. As human body parts and organs are the physiological foundation and the most fundamental reference point of man's cognition, it goes without saying that their bodily experiences are targeted as the basic research tool and instrument for man's mind and cognition, as a widely-recognized hot topic in the current field of cognitive linguistics, providing proof for the experiential philosophical outlook, and endowed with solid scientific and philosophical foundation.
In the course of cognizing the world, man mainly applies two cognitive instruments:metaphor and metonymy, both motivated by experiences and incorporated into the semantic construction. Among the current studies on metaphor and metonymy both at home and abroad, the cognitive study into human body-part terms is in full swing, featuring multi-dimension, full-scale and cross-discipline. It mainly covers four aspects:overwhelmingly applying theories of conceptual metaphor (scarcely conceptual metonymy) to one certain body part (or a few body parts); conducting English and Chinese comparative studies on one certain body part (or a few body parts) from the angle of metaphor at the micro or macro level; applying image schema, space blending and other cognitive linguistics theories to comprehensively and systematically study human metaphor; and approaching human body parts from the cultural perspective to unveil the cultural connotations underlying those human body-part terms.
The current domestic cognitive studies on English and Chinese body-part terms, achieving remarkable abundance, diversity and popularity, not only promotes development of the metaphor and metonymy theories in full depth, but also accelerates the comparative studies between Chinese and English. Nevertheless, this filed still lacks the systematic and comprehensive cognitive and comparative studies aided by corpus. Some prominent weak points of the current studies are listed as follows:the current studies seem quite monotonous and stereotyped in the approach to exploration of cognitive universality, which largely depends on boring classification and rash induction, substantially devoid of innovation; the current studies are generally plagued by one prevalent problem that studies on metonymy are overwhelmingly overshadowed by those on metaphor by incorporating metonymy into the domain of metaphor, or blurring the boundary of metaphor and metonymy, accompanied by the problem that the current classification of human metaphor and metonymy appears fairly ambiguous or disordered without being governed by one unified standard; the current cognitive studies on human body-part items remain challenged in the incomplete coverage of the study objects for most emphasis has been paid to a few main body parts while many other body parts have drawn little or no attention, such as "ear, neck, arm, brow" and "viscera" except "heart". Furthermore, the current cognitive analysis on the body-part terms is not systematic, with insufficient attention to differences in their cognitive salience and to their association, accordingly reserving room for comprehensive and systematic cognitive studies; the current studies mostly highlight description and categorization of human body-part terms while cares little about the specific operational mechanism, that is to say, unable to systematically explain how meanings of human body-part terms are metaphorized or metonymized.
This dissertation is a systematic in-depth and all-around comparative study on English and Chinese body-part terms from the cognitive perspective. By combining cognitive linguistic theories, including mapping, image schema and ICM, and the continuum concept of metaphor and metonymy, it constructs unified and continuous cognitive network of each English and Chinese body-part term through analysis on its meaning transference, exploring the differences in English and Chinese meaning transference from the angles of language, culture, natural environment, etc; then the dissertation conducts a quantitative and qualitative analysis on meaning transference and semantic image exaction by taking a statistic approach to different body-part terms in order to explore the experiential rule and difference in cognitive salience of body parts in English and Chinese; finally, the dissertation collects the semantic metaphorical and metonymical conceptual properties of the English and Chinese body-part terms for macro comparative studies, to probe into the differences of meaning transference from the cross-cultural perspective, and to represent cognitive universality and cultural relativity of English and Chinese nations at an all-around level and dimension. In order to smoothly achieve those goals, this dissertation will select corpus from authoritative, authentic, reliable and stable dictionaries instead of literary and other sources, covering a wide variety of expressions from words, phrases and idioms related to body parts, because routinized and conventionalized metaphoric and metonymic expressions best embody the most alive and most deeply entrenched, efficient and powerful cognition.
In the course of constructing English and Chinese meaning transference systems of body-part terms, the dissertation systematically reveals the following holistic traits:
1. English tends to borrow the concept of containment to activate interaction between metaphor and metonymy, while Chinese is relatively weak in application of containment.
2. Transference of body-part terms from noun to quantifier in Chinese is more prevalent than that in English.
3. Quite a number of English body-part terms can be metonymized into verbs by themselves while the Chinese equivalents fail to do so but mostly to be combined with action morphemes to form the compound verb structure——"action+body-part terms" or "body-part terms+action". Accordingly, shift of body-part terms from noun to verb in English is more frequent and prevalent than that in Chinese.
4. In Chinese a body-part term with different appellations features a high amount of meaning transference, caused by historically excessive meaning loads of one word and assignation part of meaning loads to another word. Consequently those appellations have certain division in role, with semantic image exaction of one appellation highlighting physical features, tending to become a quantifier.
5. The quantities of meaning transference of body-part terms decrease successively from terms of the head to terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera. The head terms feature the highest salience with striking appearance, prominent location and indispensible function, in which the function features a higher salience in the English nation while the appearance and location feature a higher salience in the Chinese nation; the quantities of meaning transference of head terms are very close to those of trunk terms in English, while the gap between the two in Chinese is relatively high, which can be explained by the emphasis in semantic image exaction; because the viscera are covert, invisible, and too complicated in function, more difficult to perceive than more overt parts of the head and the trunk, thus they feature the lowest salience, with meanings mostly transferred to character and emotion.
6. Different body parts feature distinct cognitive salience in both Chinese and English. Location, whose amount basically conforms to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the head parts; while function also plays a supporting role in measurement of salience. In both Chinese and English, "tou/head" is the most salient part, integrating "bounded", "good gestalt", "more", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; Likewise, "yan/eye" and "bi/nose", though smaller in shape, are also highly salient and prone to becoming the "profile", with "bounded", "immediate", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; the above-mentioned three parts are located high, while "lian/face" and "zui/mouth" located relatively lower are fairly salient, with "good gestalt", "functional" and "interactional" salient features; in spite of considerably strong "functional" and "interactional" features, "er/ear" is poorly salient, for being inconspicuously located, "less" in shape, "non-immediate" in perception; largely incorporated into the gestalt perception of the mouth organ, "ya/tooth", "she/tongue" and "chun/lip" feature a quite low salience with a poorer gestalt than "mouth"; though located high, "mei/brow" is poorly salient with weak "functional" and "interactional" salient features. In contrast, "lian" and "mei" in Chinese, with profound cultural loads and "stereotyped" images, situated in the "center" of Chinese culture, both feature a higher salience than English equivalents of "face" and "brow";
Function, whose amount basically conforms to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the trunk parts; while location also plays a supporting role in measurement of salience. Among the trunk parts, "shou/hand", "bei/back" and "jiao/foot" with meaning transference based on location, which feature the higher number of semantic image exaction based on function, are the more salient parts. Among the three parts, "shou/hand" is the most salient part, integrating "bounded", "immediate", "functional" and "interactional" salient features, followed by "bei/back" with salient features of "good gestalt", "more" and "jiao/foot" with strong "functional" and "interactional" salient features; "bi/arm" and "jing/neck" which fail to transfer meanings based on location, and have few semantic image exaction based on function, are poorly salient. On the other hand, "jiao" in Chinese and "back" in English feature a higher salience than the respective equivalent of "foot" and "bei" for its profound culture load and "stereotyped" image.
Function, whose amount is parallel to that of the meaning transference, is the most representative measure of salience among the viscera parts. In Chinese, "xin" is the most salient part, followed by "chang" and "dan", and other parts poorly salient; in English, "heart" is the most salient, followed by "gut", and other parts poorly salient. "dan" in Chinese features a higher salience than its English equivalent of "gall" for its profound culture load and "stereotyped" image.
7. The semantic metaphorical property of body-part terms in English and Chinese embodies metaphors mapped from body parts to "inanimate objects, space, time and container"; while the semantic metonymical property of body-part terms manifests itself in extension of the nominatum of body-part terms to "man, emotion, product and perception".
引文
[1]Barcelona, A. On the Plausibility of Claiming a Metonymic Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor [A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[2]Croft, W. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4):335-370.
[3]Dirven, R. Metonymy and Metaphor:Different Mental Strategies of Conception [A]. Dirven, R.& Porings, R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[4]Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy:The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expression for Linguistic Action [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1990 (1-3):323-340.
[5]Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy:The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Figurative Expression for Linguistic Action [A]. Goossens, L. et al. By Word of Mouth [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
[6]Heine, B. et al. Grammaticalization:a Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1991.
[7]Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[8]Kovecses, Z. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1990.
[9]Kovecses, Z. The Scope of Metaphor[A].Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[10]Kovecses, Z. Metaphor——A Practical Introduction[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2002.
[11]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[12]Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought(2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993: 202-251.
[13]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[14]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh-The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books,1999.
[15]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by(2nd edition)[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2003.
[16]Lakoff, G.& Turner, M. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide of Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989.
[17]Langacker, R. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. California:Stanford University Press,1987.
[18]Langacker, R. Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics [J].1993(4): 1-38.
[19]Langacker, R. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
[20]Langacker, R. Concept, Image and Symbol:the Cognitive Basis of Grammar(2 nd edition) [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[21]Mendoza, R. F. J. The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy [A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[22]Ning Yu. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1998.
[23]Radden, G.& Kovecses, Z. Towards a Theory of Metonymy Panther[A]. K-U.& Radden, G. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999:17-59.
[24]Radden, G. How Metonymic Are Metaphors[A]. Dirven, R.& Porings, R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[25]Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Interaction [J]. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies,1997,19(1).
[26]Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J.& Otal Campo, J. L. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granada:Editorial Comares,2002.
[27]Talmy, L. How Language Structures Space[A]. Pick, H. L.& Acredolo, L. P., Spatial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application, New York:Plenum Press, 1983.
[28]Taylor, J. Cognitive Grammar [M]. London:Oxford University Press,2002.
[29]Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototype in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[30]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
[31]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edition) [M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited,2006.
[32]白英杰.英汉人体内脏器官的隐喻认知比较[D].长春：吉林大学,2009.
[33]蔡晖.转喻思维产生动因的多元思考[J].外语学刊,2006(6)：41-45.
[34]陈家旭.英汉语人体隐喻化认知对比[J].聊城大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005 (1)：8-10.
[35]陈家旭.英汉隐喻认知对比研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2007.
[36]陈家旭.英汉语“喜悦”情感隐喻认知对比[J].外语与外语教学,2007(7)：36-37.
[37]陈家旭.英汉语“恐惧”情感隐喻认知对比[J].四川外语学院学报,2008(1)：66-68.
[38]陈洁.从认知角度看英汉语中的“口齿唇舌”转喻[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2006a.
[39]陈洁.汉英日语中的“口齿唇舌——言语”转喻[J].沈阳工程学院学报(社会科学版),2006b(2)：200-203.
[40]陈晶,郑佳燕.隐喻在习语语义形成和抽象化过程中的作用——以“手”为例[J].北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(1)：90-92.
[41]陈文萃.从英汉表情感的成语看英汉情感隐喻的共性[J].广西社会科学,2004(1)：92-95.
[42]程东岳.“脸”的隐喻与转喻——基于“脸”的汉英语料对比研究[J].华东交通大学学报,2007(3)：151-153.
[43]程淑贞.汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究[J].语文教学与研究,2000(1)：25,35.
[44]程淑贞.从汉语人体部位特征的隐喻说开去[J].修辞学习,2002(3)：16.
[45]成滢.漫谈与五官有关的英语习语[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版)(外国语言文学专辑),2000(28)：281-283.
[46]戴卫平,高艳红.英汉语言中“头”隐喻研究[J].广西社会科学,2007(3)：137-139.
[47]董伟娟,毛静林.英汉“恐惧”隐喻的对比分析[J].台州学院学报,2008(1)：41-44.
[48]董银燕.从认知角度看一词多义的拓展机制——以"head"和“头”为例[J].湖州师范学院学报,2007(3)：37-42.
[49]冯凌宇.汉语中的人体隐喻与反隐喻[J].北方论丛,2007(4)：76-80.
[50]冯凌宇.人体体认与汉文化[J].江汉论坛,2007(6)：130-132.
[51]冯凌宇.汉语人体词汇研究[M].中国广播电视出版社,2008.
[52]高明乐,朱文俊.汉语“手”和英语"hand"的领域转移比较[J].外语研究,2005(1)：24-25.
[53]高晓荣.从认知角度看人体隐喻[D].石家庄：河北师范大学,2006.
[54]龚群虎.人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题[J].语文研究,1994(4)：42-48.
[55]贺文照.英译汉中“心”的隐喻重构——基于汉英平行语料库的考察[J].四川外国语学院学报,2008(2)：129-133.
[56]侯可怡.关于英汉人体隐喻化认知异同原因的研究[J].安徽文学,2008(12)：364-365.
[57]侯玲文.“心”义文化探索[J].汉语学习,2001(3)：54-60.
[58]胡越坚,王菊兰.浅析英汉“心”词汇的隐喻认知特点[J].成都理工大学学报,2008(3)：109-112.
[59]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[60]黄碧蓉.人体词语语义研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学,2009.
[61]黄凤.人体隐喻的认知研究[D].成都：四川大学,2006.
[62]黄运亭.英汉人体器官名词名转动比较研究[J].华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),1997增刊(Ⅱ)：75-79.
[63]金科芳.汉语“心”和英语"heart"语义领域转移比较[J].文教论坛,2007(10)：45-46.
[64]晋小涵,齐振海.论汉语“面”的空间隐喻[J].外语研究,2007(4)：16-20.
[65]孔光.从空间合成理论看身体名词的隐喻认知[J].外语教学,2004(1)：31-34.
[66]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1999(4)：1-7.
[67]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[68]蓝纯.认知语言学与隐喻研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
[69]雷志斌.转喻的认知研究[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
[70]李刚.从认知角度研究英汉语中的身体隐喻[D].石家庄：河北师范大学,2008.
[71]李红.从文化角度看人体隐喻的认知研究[D].成都：四川大学,2007.
[72]李红,余兰.从认知角度看英汉人体词“手”的隐喻特点异同[J].成都航 空职业技术学院学报,2008(3)：71-73.
[73]李丽君.基于人体外部器官的英汉情感习语比较[J].保定师范专科学校学报,2005(3)：27-28.
[74]李树新.论人体词语的文化意蕴[J].内蒙古大学学报,2002(5)：58-63.
[75]李树新.人体词语的认知模式与语义类推[J].汉字文化,2004(4)：8-12.
[76]李瑛,文旭.从“头”认知——转喻、隐喻与一词多义现象研究[J].外语教学,2006(3)：1-5.
[77]李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释[J].外国语言文学,2003(4)：14-17.
[78]李勇忠.转喻的概念本质及其语用学意义[J].外语与外语教学,2005(8)：1-4.
[79]廖贵燕.汉英语言中“头”的空间隐喻研究[J].承德石油高等专科学校,2008(1)：66-68.
[80]廖艳平.英汉人体词“'head(头)”的隐喻研究[J].现代语文,2007(1)：60-62.
[81]林书武.国外隐喻研究综述[J].外语教学与研究,1997(1)：1-12.
[82]林书武.愤怒的概念隐喻——英语、汉语语料[J].外语与外语教学,1998(2)： 9-13.
[83]林书武.隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势[J].外国语,2002(1)：38-45.
[84]刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语,2002(1)：61-70.
[85]卢卫中.人体隐喻化的认知特点[J].外语教学,2003(6)：24-29.
[86]陆国强.现代英语构词[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1981.
[87]马小玲.英汉人体词汇隐喻的对比研究——以“手”为例[J].玉溪师范学院学报,2007(10)：51-55.
[88]满欣.汉语内脏器官词语意义分析[D].南宁：广西师范大学,2007.
[89]孟娜.汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D].长春：吉林大学,2007.
[90]闵娜.汉语人体词隐喻的系统分析[J].德宏师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)： 95-97.
[91]闵娜.汉语“足”词群的隐喻认知分析[J].临沧师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)：80-82,90.
[92]宁全新."Anger"与隐喻[J].外国语,1998(5)：69-72.
[93]彭聃龄.普通心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1988.
[94]齐沪扬.现代汉语空间问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,1998.
[95]齐振海.从英汉对比角度对论“心”的隐喻——基于英、汉语料库的对比研究[J].外语研究,2003(3)：24-27.
[96]齐振海,覃修贵.“心”隐喻词语的范畴化研究[J].外语研究,2004(6)： 24-28.
[97]齐振海,王义娜.“心”词语的认知框架[J].外语学刊,2007(1)：61-66.
[98]钱进.说“脚”构词语系列及其文化内涵[J].语文学刊,1996(4)：34-35.
[99]邵健.身体词的隐喻研究——以汉语“手”类词为例[J]杭州师范学院学报(医学版),2005(5)：456-459.
[100]沈家煊.“语法化”研究综观[J].外语教学与研究,1994(4)：17-24.
[101]沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999(1)：3-15.
[102]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[103]束定芳.隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语,2004(3)：26-34.
[104]束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
[105]宋玉阁.从“手”的概念隐喻看中西文化认知的异同[J].桂林师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)：155-158.
[106]苏立昌.认知语言学与意义理论——隐喻与意义理论研究(英文版)[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2007.
[107]覃德英、周桂香.汉英“心”义探析[J].大学英语(学术版),2006(8)：76-79.
[108]覃修桂.“眼”的概念隐喻——基于语料的英汉对比研究[J].外国语,2008(5)：37-43.
[109]唐亚维.英汉人体隐喻对比研究[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
[110]王德春,张辉.国外认知语言学研究现状综述[J].外语研究,2001(3)：1-10.
[111]王莉.“眼”的隐喻[J].现代语文,2006(6)：27-29.
[112]王敏.英汉人体词认知对比研究[J].荆门职业技术学院学报,2005(2)：66-69.
[113]王群,齐振海.“手”词语的结构化分析[J].华北电力大学学报(社会科学版),2005(1)：127-130.
[114]王文斌.论汉语“心”的空间隐喻的结构化[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(1)：57-60.
[115]王寅.认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究,2002(1)：82-89.
[116]王寅.语言的体验性——从体验哲学和认知语言学看语言体验观[J].外语教学与研究,2005(1)：37-43.
[117]王寅.荀子论语言的体验认知辩证观[J].外语学刊,2006(5)：1-7.
[118]王迎春.试论汉语中表人体部位词的隐喻现象[J].语文学刊(高教版),2005(9)：69-71.
[119]王月丽,倪坤鹏.从隐喻和转喻认知思维模式看“眼睛”的词义延伸[J].乐山师范学院学报,2008(2)：85-88.
[120]魏梅.英汉身体部位词的常规隐喻探究——以“脸、眼”为例[J].伊犁师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008(4)：83-86.
[121]文旭,吴淑琼.英汉“脸、面”词汇的隐喻认知特点[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2007(6)：140-144.
[122]吴恩锋.论汉语“心”的隐喻认知系统[J].语言教学与研究,2004a(6),49-55.
[123]吴恩锋.再论“心”的隐喻——兼与齐振海先生商榷[J].外语研究,2004b(6),18-23.
[124]吴淑琼.英汉“脸、面”的多义网络对比研究及认知理据[J].西华师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(3)：88-95.
[125]向二兰. “脸”的隐喻意义探源[J].外语学刊,2007(3)：28-31.
[126]荀苗.与人体相关的隐喻表达的认知阐释[D].曲阜：曲阜师范大学,2008.
[127]寻阳.Heart从转喻到隐喻的认知语义解读[J].湖北教育学院学报,2006(6)：39-41.
[128]严爽.英语"hand"和汉语“手”之一词多义对比[J].浙江科技学院学报,2006(4)：298-302.
[129]严婷,李冀宏.隐喻转喻下“心”词语语义的生成与演变[J].齐齐哈尔师范高等专科学校学报,2008(2)：45-46.
[130]杨北雁.英语人体词趣谈[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报(社会科学版),2001(3) ： 1-3.
[131]杨德龙,杨小洪.汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J].杭州师范学院学报(社会科学版),2005(3)：104-108.
[132]姚静.论人体部位在人体隐喻中的外化与内化[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2008.
[133]叶奕乾等.普通心理学[M].上海；华东师范大学出版社,1997.
[134]尹正,邓欢.论汉语“脸”的空间隐喻[J].考试周刊,2008(5)：141-143.
[135]袁眉.英汉有关五官的习语比较[J].重庆交通大学学报(社科版),2007(6)：117-120.
[136]曾庆敏.英汉隐喻的文化差异及其隐喻教学研究[J].重庆交通学院学报(社会科学版),2005(1)：123-126.
[137]张厚粲.心理学[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2002.
[138]张辉.汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究[J].外国语,2000(5)：27-32.
[139]张辉,孙明智.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制[J].外语与外语教 学,2005(3)：1-5.
[140]张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理模式[J].外国语,2002(4)：46-52.
[141]张建理.英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J].外国语,2003(4)：54-58.
[142]张建理.汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J].修辞学习,2005(1)：40-43.
[143]张建理.英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)，2006(3)：161-168.
[144]张瑞华.英汉“心”隐喻对比研究——与吴恩锋先生商榷[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2008(8)：25-31.
[145]张喜彦,梁丽.论“脸”的隐喻——基于英汉语料库的对比研究[C].外语教育,华中科技大学出版社,2008：122-126.
[146]张学忠,戴卫平.英语“eye”隐喻分析[J].广西社会科学,2007(10)：141-144.
[147]张薇.“口”、“嘴”辨析[J].语言教学与研究,2005(2)：77-80.
[148]周红.英汉情感隐喻共性分析[J].四川外语学院学报,2001(3)：90-92.
[149]周健,陈萍. “眼”的隐喻说略[J].修辞学习,2005(2)：66-67.
[150]赵丽娟.探究英汉两种语言中“鼻子”的隐转喻异同[D].上海：东华大学,2008.
[151]赵倩.汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D].北京：北京语言大学,2007.
[152]赵学德,王晴.语言变化的动因、特征和趋势[J].山东外语教学,2008(3)：13-17.
[153]赵学德.语法化的本质特征、演变机制和方式[J].澳门理工学报,2008(4)：102-110.
[154]赵学德,王晴.从认知角度看汉语N+N复合词的构建理据[J].惠州学院学报,2009(2)：83-87.
[155]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[156]赵艳芳.语言结构的空间性[J].外语论坛,2003(4)：39.
[157]郑珂.中英情感隐喻对比研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2001.
[158]庄建灵.英汉体喻对比[J].福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(1)：16-18.
[159]《当代汉语词典》[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001.
[160]《汉语大字典》[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,1993.
[161]《美国传统英汉双解学习词典》[Z].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
[162]《牛津高阶英汉双解词典》(第四版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[163]《现代汉语词典》(修订版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[164]《英汉大词典》(第二版)[Z].上海：上海译文出版社,2007.
[2]Croft, W. The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4):335-370.
[3]Dirven, R. Metonymy and Metaphor:Different Mental Strategies of Conception [A]. Dirven, R.& Porings, R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[4]Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy:The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expression for Linguistic Action [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1990 (1-3):323-340.
[5]Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy:The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Figurative Expression for Linguistic Action [A]. Goossens, L. et al. By Word of Mouth [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
[6]Heine, B. et al. Grammaticalization:a Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1991.
[7]Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[8]Kovecses, Z. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1990.
[9]Kovecses, Z. The Scope of Metaphor[A].Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[10]Kovecses, Z. Metaphor——A Practical Introduction[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2002.
[11]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
[12]Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought(2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993: 202-251.
[13]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[14]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh-The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books,1999.
[15]Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by(2nd edition)[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2003.
[16]Lakoff, G.& Turner, M. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide of Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989.
[17]Langacker, R. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. California:Stanford University Press,1987.
[18]Langacker, R. Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics [J].1993(4): 1-38.
[19]Langacker, R. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
[20]Langacker, R. Concept, Image and Symbol:the Cognitive Basis of Grammar(2 nd edition) [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[21]Mendoza, R. F. J. The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy [A]. Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[22]Ning Yu. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1998.
[23]Radden, G.& Kovecses, Z. Towards a Theory of Metonymy Panther[A]. K-U.& Radden, G. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1999:17-59.
[24]Radden, G. How Metonymic Are Metaphors[A]. Dirven, R.& Porings, R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2002.
[25]Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Interaction [J]. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies,1997,19(1).
[26]Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J.& Otal Campo, J. L. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granada:Editorial Comares,2002.
[27]Talmy, L. How Language Structures Space[A]. Pick, H. L.& Acredolo, L. P., Spatial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application, New York:Plenum Press, 1983.
[28]Taylor, J. Cognitive Grammar [M]. London:Oxford University Press,2002.
[29]Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototype in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[30]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
[31]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edition) [M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited,2006.
[32]白英杰.英汉人体内脏器官的隐喻认知比较[D].长春：吉林大学,2009.
[33]蔡晖.转喻思维产生动因的多元思考[J].外语学刊,2006(6)：41-45.
[34]陈家旭.英汉语人体隐喻化认知对比[J].聊城大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005 (1)：8-10.
[35]陈家旭.英汉隐喻认知对比研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2007.
[36]陈家旭.英汉语“喜悦”情感隐喻认知对比[J].外语与外语教学,2007(7)：36-37.
[37]陈家旭.英汉语“恐惧”情感隐喻认知对比[J].四川外语学院学报,2008(1)：66-68.
[38]陈洁.从认知角度看英汉语中的“口齿唇舌”转喻[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2006a.
[39]陈洁.汉英日语中的“口齿唇舌——言语”转喻[J].沈阳工程学院学报(社会科学版),2006b(2)：200-203.
[40]陈晶,郑佳燕.隐喻在习语语义形成和抽象化过程中的作用——以“手”为例[J].北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(1)：90-92.
[41]陈文萃.从英汉表情感的成语看英汉情感隐喻的共性[J].广西社会科学,2004(1)：92-95.
[42]程东岳.“脸”的隐喻与转喻——基于“脸”的汉英语料对比研究[J].华东交通大学学报,2007(3)：151-153.
[43]程淑贞.汉语人体部位特征的隐喻研究[J].语文教学与研究,2000(1)：25,35.
[44]程淑贞.从汉语人体部位特征的隐喻说开去[J].修辞学习,2002(3)：16.
[45]成滢.漫谈与五官有关的英语习语[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版)(外国语言文学专辑),2000(28)：281-283.
[46]戴卫平,高艳红.英汉语言中“头”隐喻研究[J].广西社会科学,2007(3)：137-139.
[47]董伟娟,毛静林.英汉“恐惧”隐喻的对比分析[J].台州学院学报,2008(1)：41-44.
[48]董银燕.从认知角度看一词多义的拓展机制——以"head"和“头”为例[J].湖州师范学院学报,2007(3)：37-42.
[49]冯凌宇.汉语中的人体隐喻与反隐喻[J].北方论丛,2007(4)：76-80.
[50]冯凌宇.人体体认与汉文化[J].江汉论坛,2007(6)：130-132.
[51]冯凌宇.汉语人体词汇研究[M].中国广播电视出版社,2008.
[52]高明乐,朱文俊.汉语“手”和英语"hand"的领域转移比较[J].外语研究,2005(1)：24-25.
[53]高晓荣.从认知角度看人体隐喻[D].石家庄：河北师范大学,2006.
[54]龚群虎.人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关问题[J].语文研究,1994(4)：42-48.
[55]贺文照.英译汉中“心”的隐喻重构——基于汉英平行语料库的考察[J].四川外国语学院学报,2008(2)：129-133.
[56]侯可怡.关于英汉人体隐喻化认知异同原因的研究[J].安徽文学,2008(12)：364-365.
[57]侯玲文.“心”义文化探索[J].汉语学习,2001(3)：54-60.
[58]胡越坚,王菊兰.浅析英汉“心”词汇的隐喻认知特点[J].成都理工大学学报,2008(3)：109-112.
[59]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[60]黄碧蓉.人体词语语义研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学,2009.
[61]黄凤.人体隐喻的认知研究[D].成都：四川大学,2006.
[62]黄运亭.英汉人体器官名词名转动比较研究[J].华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),1997增刊(Ⅱ)：75-79.
[63]金科芳.汉语“心”和英语"heart"语义领域转移比较[J].文教论坛,2007(10)：45-46.
[64]晋小涵,齐振海.论汉语“面”的空间隐喻[J].外语研究,2007(4)：16-20.
[65]孔光.从空间合成理论看身体名词的隐喻认知[J].外语教学,2004(1)：31-34.
[66]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1999(4)：1-7.
[67]蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[68]蓝纯.认知语言学与隐喻研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
[69]雷志斌.转喻的认知研究[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
[70]李刚.从认知角度研究英汉语中的身体隐喻[D].石家庄：河北师范大学,2008.
[71]李红.从文化角度看人体隐喻的认知研究[D].成都：四川大学,2007.
[72]李红,余兰.从认知角度看英汉人体词“手”的隐喻特点异同[J].成都航 空职业技术学院学报,2008(3)：71-73.
[73]李丽君.基于人体外部器官的英汉情感习语比较[J].保定师范专科学校学报,2005(3)：27-28.
[74]李树新.论人体词语的文化意蕴[J].内蒙古大学学报,2002(5)：58-63.
[75]李树新.人体词语的认知模式与语义类推[J].汉字文化,2004(4)：8-12.
[76]李瑛,文旭.从“头”认知——转喻、隐喻与一词多义现象研究[J].外语教学,2006(3)：1-5.
[77]李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释[J].外国语言文学,2003(4)：14-17.
[78]李勇忠.转喻的概念本质及其语用学意义[J].外语与外语教学,2005(8)：1-4.
[79]廖贵燕.汉英语言中“头”的空间隐喻研究[J].承德石油高等专科学校,2008(1)：66-68.
[80]廖艳平.英汉人体词“'head(头)”的隐喻研究[J].现代语文,2007(1)：60-62.
[81]林书武.国外隐喻研究综述[J].外语教学与研究,1997(1)：1-12.
[82]林书武.愤怒的概念隐喻——英语、汉语语料[J].外语与外语教学,1998(2)： 9-13.
[83]林书武.隐喻研究的基本现状、焦点及趋势[J].外国语,2002(1)：38-45.
[84]刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语,2002(1)：61-70.
[85]卢卫中.人体隐喻化的认知特点[J].外语教学,2003(6)：24-29.
[86]陆国强.现代英语构词[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1981.
[87]马小玲.英汉人体词汇隐喻的对比研究——以“手”为例[J].玉溪师范学院学报,2007(10)：51-55.
[88]满欣.汉语内脏器官词语意义分析[D].南宁：广西师范大学,2007.
[89]孟娜.汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D].长春：吉林大学,2007.
[90]闵娜.汉语人体词隐喻的系统分析[J].德宏师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)： 95-97.
[91]闵娜.汉语“足”词群的隐喻认知分析[J].临沧师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)：80-82,90.
[92]宁全新."Anger"与隐喻[J].外国语,1998(5)：69-72.
[93]彭聃龄.普通心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1988.
[94]齐沪扬.现代汉语空间问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,1998.
[95]齐振海.从英汉对比角度对论“心”的隐喻——基于英、汉语料库的对比研究[J].外语研究,2003(3)：24-27.
[96]齐振海,覃修贵.“心”隐喻词语的范畴化研究[J].外语研究,2004(6)： 24-28.
[97]齐振海,王义娜.“心”词语的认知框架[J].外语学刊,2007(1)：61-66.
[98]钱进.说“脚”构词语系列及其文化内涵[J].语文学刊,1996(4)：34-35.
[99]邵健.身体词的隐喻研究——以汉语“手”类词为例[J]杭州师范学院学报(医学版),2005(5)：456-459.
[100]沈家煊.“语法化”研究综观[J].外语教学与研究,1994(4)：17-24.
[101]沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999(1)：3-15.
[102]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[103]束定芳.隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语,2004(3)：26-34.
[104]束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
[105]宋玉阁.从“手”的概念隐喻看中西文化认知的异同[J].桂林师范高等专科学校学报,2007(4)：155-158.
[106]苏立昌.认知语言学与意义理论——隐喻与意义理论研究(英文版)[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2007.
[107]覃德英、周桂香.汉英“心”义探析[J].大学英语(学术版),2006(8)：76-79.
[108]覃修桂.“眼”的概念隐喻——基于语料的英汉对比研究[J].外国语,2008(5)：37-43.
[109]唐亚维.英汉人体隐喻对比研究[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2005.
[110]王德春,张辉.国外认知语言学研究现状综述[J].外语研究,2001(3)：1-10.
[111]王莉.“眼”的隐喻[J].现代语文,2006(6)：27-29.
[112]王敏.英汉人体词认知对比研究[J].荆门职业技术学院学报,2005(2)：66-69.
[113]王群,齐振海.“手”词语的结构化分析[J].华北电力大学学报(社会科学版),2005(1)：127-130.
[114]王文斌.论汉语“心”的空间隐喻的结构化[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(1)：57-60.
[115]王寅.认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究,2002(1)：82-89.
[116]王寅.语言的体验性——从体验哲学和认知语言学看语言体验观[J].外语教学与研究,2005(1)：37-43.
[117]王寅.荀子论语言的体验认知辩证观[J].外语学刊,2006(5)：1-7.
[118]王迎春.试论汉语中表人体部位词的隐喻现象[J].语文学刊(高教版),2005(9)：69-71.
[119]王月丽,倪坤鹏.从隐喻和转喻认知思维模式看“眼睛”的词义延伸[J].乐山师范学院学报,2008(2)：85-88.
[120]魏梅.英汉身体部位词的常规隐喻探究——以“脸、眼”为例[J].伊犁师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008(4)：83-86.
[121]文旭,吴淑琼.英汉“脸、面”词汇的隐喻认知特点[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2007(6)：140-144.
[122]吴恩锋.论汉语“心”的隐喻认知系统[J].语言教学与研究,2004a(6),49-55.
[123]吴恩锋.再论“心”的隐喻——兼与齐振海先生商榷[J].外语研究,2004b(6),18-23.
[124]吴淑琼.英汉“脸、面”的多义网络对比研究及认知理据[J].西华师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(3)：88-95.
[125]向二兰. “脸”的隐喻意义探源[J].外语学刊,2007(3)：28-31.
[126]荀苗.与人体相关的隐喻表达的认知阐释[D].曲阜：曲阜师范大学,2008.
[127]寻阳.Heart从转喻到隐喻的认知语义解读[J].湖北教育学院学报,2006(6)：39-41.
[128]严爽.英语"hand"和汉语“手”之一词多义对比[J].浙江科技学院学报,2006(4)：298-302.
[129]严婷,李冀宏.隐喻转喻下“心”词语语义的生成与演变[J].齐齐哈尔师范高等专科学校学报,2008(2)：45-46.
[130]杨北雁.英语人体词趣谈[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报(社会科学版),2001(3) ： 1-3.
[131]杨德龙,杨小洪.汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J].杭州师范学院学报(社会科学版),2005(3)：104-108.
[132]姚静.论人体部位在人体隐喻中的外化与内化[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2008.
[133]叶奕乾等.普通心理学[M].上海；华东师范大学出版社,1997.
[134]尹正,邓欢.论汉语“脸”的空间隐喻[J].考试周刊,2008(5)：141-143.
[135]袁眉.英汉有关五官的习语比较[J].重庆交通大学学报(社科版),2007(6)：117-120.
[136]曾庆敏.英汉隐喻的文化差异及其隐喻教学研究[J].重庆交通学院学报(社会科学版),2005(1)：123-126.
[137]张厚粲.心理学[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2002.
[138]张辉.汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究[J].外国语,2000(5)：27-32.
[139]张辉,孙明智.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制[J].外语与外语教 学,2005(3)：1-5.
[140]张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理模式[J].外国语,2002(4)：46-52.
[141]张建理.英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J].外国语,2003(4)：54-58.
[142]张建理.汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J].修辞学习,2005(1)：40-43.
[143]张建理.英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)，2006(3)：161-168.
[144]张瑞华.英汉“心”隐喻对比研究——与吴恩锋先生商榷[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2008(8)：25-31.
[145]张喜彦,梁丽.论“脸”的隐喻——基于英汉语料库的对比研究[C].外语教育,华中科技大学出版社,2008：122-126.
[146]张学忠,戴卫平.英语“eye”隐喻分析[J].广西社会科学,2007(10)：141-144.
[147]张薇.“口”、“嘴”辨析[J].语言教学与研究,2005(2)：77-80.
[148]周红.英汉情感隐喻共性分析[J].四川外语学院学报,2001(3)：90-92.
[149]周健,陈萍. “眼”的隐喻说略[J].修辞学习,2005(2)：66-67.
[150]赵丽娟.探究英汉两种语言中“鼻子”的隐转喻异同[D].上海：东华大学,2008.
[151]赵倩.汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D].北京：北京语言大学,2007.
[152]赵学德,王晴.语言变化的动因、特征和趋势[J].山东外语教学,2008(3)：13-17.
[153]赵学德.语法化的本质特征、演变机制和方式[J].澳门理工学报,2008(4)：102-110.
[154]赵学德,王晴.从认知角度看汉语N+N复合词的构建理据[J].惠州学院学报,2009(2)：83-87.
[155]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[156]赵艳芳.语言结构的空间性[J].外语论坛,2003(4)：39.
[157]郑珂.中英情感隐喻对比研究[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2001.
[158]庄建灵.英汉体喻对比[J].福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(1)：16-18.
[159]《当代汉语词典》[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001.
[160]《汉语大字典》[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,1993.
[161]《美国传统英汉双解学习词典》[Z].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
[162]《牛津高阶英汉双解词典》(第四版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[163]《现代汉语词典》(修订版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[164]《英汉大词典》(第二版)[Z].上海：上海译文出版社,2007.