明喻和隐喻的心理语言学研究
摘要
明喻和隐喻的异同,一直是心理学界争论的焦点。比较论、范畴论和概念隐喻论认为他们二者并无差异,而习俗论和适宜论却强调两者存在不同。本文赞成异同论,但与习俗论和适宜论不同的是,认为两者的异同是多元素共同作用的结果,这些因素包括:谓词的类型、本喻体之间的相似度和它们之间的意义组合、喻体对共性特征的贡献、人们对本喻体之间搭配的熟悉度等。本文首先通过实证方法证明明喻和隐喻的选择与这五个方面相关,并在实验的论证基础上提出了一种全新的异同观。
为了探究两者之间的差异,本研究选取了50对本体和喻体,就明喻和隐喻的最基本形式:A是(像) B展开讨论。太原理工大学非英语专业的一年级学生参与了四个问卷的调查,四次调查的人数累计共达332人,调查的内容包括:本喻体的倾向性形式表达,两者共性特点描述及相似度和显著性判断、喻体在相似性形成中的作用、两者搭配的熟悉度以及句子的理解难易程度判断。
结果表明:当本体为具体名词,喻体也为具体名词,且两者之间相似度较小、熟悉度不高,本喻体对喻底的贡献基本均衡,且两者的顺序在某种程度上具有一定的逆转性,其喻底大多呈现出属性类特点时,被试更倾向于选择明喻;而当本体为具体名词,喻体为抽象名词,且两者之间相似度较大、熟悉度较高,两者的顺序具有较强的不可逆转性,喻底的意义主要源自喻体,且喻底大多呈现出关系类特点时,被试更倾向于选择隐喻。
这一结果也表明:明喻和隐喻呈现出不同的特点,但两者之间的界限却比较模糊,他们之间具有一定的互换性。这说明它们两者都涉及了跨域投射,即本体和喻体属于两个不同的领域,只是在投射过程中,相关量的大小不同而已。基于此,本文对明喻-隐喻异同论做出了新的理论阐述,即两者之间的对立并非一种非此即彼的二元对立,而是一种共处同一连续体中的对立,他们分别为该连续体的两个方面。
借用认知语言学的“原型”术语,本文提出具有明喻典型特征的为原型性明喻,而具有隐喻典型特征的为原型性隐喻,原型性明喻和原型性隐喻分别处于明喻-隐喻这个连续统一体的两端,在原型性明喻向原型性隐喻或原型性隐喻向原型性明喻发展过程中,会分别出现边缘性明喻和边缘性隐喻这个中间地带,而边缘性明喻和边缘性隐喻是否会向其原型转变,取决于相关特征程度的增减。
明喻-隐喻动态观的提出是对现有异同论的必要补充和完善,它为我们进一步理解两者的异同提供了一个新的视角,具有一定的理论价值。
Different from the dominant theories of metaphor comprehension, the comparison view, the categorization view and the conceptual metaphor theory, the present study first claims that simile and metaphor are not equivalent, but their distinction is not mediated by one key factor, as argued by the conventionality hypothesis or the aptness model, but by multi-factors such as different types of predicates, similarities, the role of vehicle, familiarity, and semantic meanings of topic-vehicle pairing. Then based on the experimental results, it proposes an alternative non-equivalent model.
In order to explore how the two figurative expressions are related to or distinct with each other psychologically, the research employed 50 matched sets of metaphors and similes as stimuli, their very basic and common form: A is (like) B in the isolated context. Three hundred and thirty-two freshmen of non-English majors from Taiyuan University of Technology participated in the four questionnaire surveys but with uneven numbers in each. They were asked to perform such tasks as choosing simile-metaphor preference, listing share-features, rating holistic similarity, discrete-point similarity, familiarity, the role of vehicle in property-attribution and comprehensibility of reversed orders of topic-vehicle pairs.
The experiments show that simile is preferred if topic and vehicle are both realized by concrete nouns. They share fewer common features, less familiarity, more symmetry in property-matching and more reversibility in topic-vehicle order. Besides, attributive property is more easily mapped in simile. On the contrary, metaphor is preferred if topic and vehicle are realized one by an abstract noun and the other a concrete noun. They have more common features, more familiarity and more asymmetry and less reversibility. The property easily mapped in metaphor is relational.
The experiments also show that the distinctions between simile and metaphor are not clear-cut, though they are distinct. They are overlapping and often interchangeable to some extent. Based on the discussion of different factors, an alternative theoretical model is proposed to explain their non-equivalence, i.e. the distinction between simile and metaphor is not a dichotomy, but a continuum. It is not a dichotomy since both are concerned with the same cross-domain mappings, and it is a continuum since the increase of one characteristic in one trope means the corresponding decrease in the other.
For those strongly preferred similes or metaphors, they can be considered as the best examples of each category because they have the prototypical characteristics, which gradually fade into their marginal examples. The prototypical simile is a concrete-concrete attribution-mapped pairing characterized by the fewest similarities, the least familiarity and the most symmetry and reversibility, whereas the prototypical metaphor is an abstract-concrete relation-mapped pairing characterized by the most similarities, the most familiarity and the most asymmetry and non-reversibility. Between the two prototypes is the overlapping area of peripheral or marginal simile and metaphor, the intermediate level. Whether the peripheral simile or metaphor can turn into its prototype is related to the increase or decrease of its prototypical characteristics. They are in the dynamic process along the same continuum.
The dynamic model proposed here offers a different perspective to the non-equivalent view, which can not only reasonably explain the distinction between simile and metaphor, but also their interchangeability. It is instructive to a better and comprehensive understanding of the two.
为了探究两者之间的差异,本研究选取了50对本体和喻体,就明喻和隐喻的最基本形式:A是(像) B展开讨论。太原理工大学非英语专业的一年级学生参与了四个问卷的调查,四次调查的人数累计共达332人,调查的内容包括:本喻体的倾向性形式表达,两者共性特点描述及相似度和显著性判断、喻体在相似性形成中的作用、两者搭配的熟悉度以及句子的理解难易程度判断。
结果表明:当本体为具体名词,喻体也为具体名词,且两者之间相似度较小、熟悉度不高,本喻体对喻底的贡献基本均衡,且两者的顺序在某种程度上具有一定的逆转性,其喻底大多呈现出属性类特点时,被试更倾向于选择明喻;而当本体为具体名词,喻体为抽象名词,且两者之间相似度较大、熟悉度较高,两者的顺序具有较强的不可逆转性,喻底的意义主要源自喻体,且喻底大多呈现出关系类特点时,被试更倾向于选择隐喻。
这一结果也表明:明喻和隐喻呈现出不同的特点,但两者之间的界限却比较模糊,他们之间具有一定的互换性。这说明它们两者都涉及了跨域投射,即本体和喻体属于两个不同的领域,只是在投射过程中,相关量的大小不同而已。基于此,本文对明喻-隐喻异同论做出了新的理论阐述,即两者之间的对立并非一种非此即彼的二元对立,而是一种共处同一连续体中的对立,他们分别为该连续体的两个方面。
借用认知语言学的“原型”术语,本文提出具有明喻典型特征的为原型性明喻,而具有隐喻典型特征的为原型性隐喻,原型性明喻和原型性隐喻分别处于明喻-隐喻这个连续统一体的两端,在原型性明喻向原型性隐喻或原型性隐喻向原型性明喻发展过程中,会分别出现边缘性明喻和边缘性隐喻这个中间地带,而边缘性明喻和边缘性隐喻是否会向其原型转变,取决于相关特征程度的增减。
明喻-隐喻动态观的提出是对现有异同论的必要补充和完善,它为我们进一步理解两者的异同提供了一个新的视角,具有一定的理论价值。
Different from the dominant theories of metaphor comprehension, the comparison view, the categorization view and the conceptual metaphor theory, the present study first claims that simile and metaphor are not equivalent, but their distinction is not mediated by one key factor, as argued by the conventionality hypothesis or the aptness model, but by multi-factors such as different types of predicates, similarities, the role of vehicle, familiarity, and semantic meanings of topic-vehicle pairing. Then based on the experimental results, it proposes an alternative non-equivalent model.
In order to explore how the two figurative expressions are related to or distinct with each other psychologically, the research employed 50 matched sets of metaphors and similes as stimuli, their very basic and common form: A is (like) B in the isolated context. Three hundred and thirty-two freshmen of non-English majors from Taiyuan University of Technology participated in the four questionnaire surveys but with uneven numbers in each. They were asked to perform such tasks as choosing simile-metaphor preference, listing share-features, rating holistic similarity, discrete-point similarity, familiarity, the role of vehicle in property-attribution and comprehensibility of reversed orders of topic-vehicle pairs.
The experiments show that simile is preferred if topic and vehicle are both realized by concrete nouns. They share fewer common features, less familiarity, more symmetry in property-matching and more reversibility in topic-vehicle order. Besides, attributive property is more easily mapped in simile. On the contrary, metaphor is preferred if topic and vehicle are realized one by an abstract noun and the other a concrete noun. They have more common features, more familiarity and more asymmetry and less reversibility. The property easily mapped in metaphor is relational.
The experiments also show that the distinctions between simile and metaphor are not clear-cut, though they are distinct. They are overlapping and often interchangeable to some extent. Based on the discussion of different factors, an alternative theoretical model is proposed to explain their non-equivalence, i.e. the distinction between simile and metaphor is not a dichotomy, but a continuum. It is not a dichotomy since both are concerned with the same cross-domain mappings, and it is a continuum since the increase of one characteristic in one trope means the corresponding decrease in the other.
For those strongly preferred similes or metaphors, they can be considered as the best examples of each category because they have the prototypical characteristics, which gradually fade into their marginal examples. The prototypical simile is a concrete-concrete attribution-mapped pairing characterized by the fewest similarities, the least familiarity and the most symmetry and reversibility, whereas the prototypical metaphor is an abstract-concrete relation-mapped pairing characterized by the most similarities, the most familiarity and the most asymmetry and non-reversibility. Between the two prototypes is the overlapping area of peripheral or marginal simile and metaphor, the intermediate level. Whether the peripheral simile or metaphor can turn into its prototype is related to the increase or decrease of its prototypical characteristics. They are in the dynamic process along the same continuum.
The dynamic model proposed here offers a different perspective to the non-equivalent view, which can not only reasonably explain the distinction between simile and metaphor, but also their interchangeability. It is instructive to a better and comprehensive understanding of the two.
引文
Abdelwali, M. A. (2006). The cultural perception of similarity in metaphor. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure mapping and the simile–metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14: 45-51.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Black, M. (1979/1993). More about metaphor. In Ortony A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blasko, D. & Connine, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness in metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19 (2): 295-308.
Braun, C. M. J. (1992). A note on the effect of semantic anomaly on the intensity of emotional impact of metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 7(1): 1-10.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 34: 244-286.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112: 193-216.
Campbell, J. D. & Katz, A. N. (2006). On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1): 1-22.
Chiappe, D & Kenndedy J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6 (4): 668-674.
Chiappe, D & Kenndedy J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3 & 4): 249-276.
Chiappe, D. J., Kennedy, M, & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the
conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18: 85-105.
Cohen, L. (1979/1993). The semantics of metaphor. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
Davernport, J. & Keane, M. T. (1999). Similartiy and structural alignment: you can have one without the other. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dur, F. (2006). Understanding metaphor: a cognitive approach focusing on identification and interpretation of metaphors in poetry. Master thesis, Cukurova University, Adana.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7: 155-170.
Gentner, D & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press.
Gentner, D. & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 331-355.
Gentner, D & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52: 45-56.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Development, 59: 47-59.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16: 223-247.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B., Wolff, P, & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (eds.), The Analogical Mind:Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gibb, H., & Wales, R. (1990). Metaphor or simile: Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 5: 199-213.
Gibbs Jr., R.W. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review,99: 572–577.
Gibbs Jr., R.W., Costa Lima, P.L., Francozo, E. (1994). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1189–1211.
Giora Jr., R.W. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8: 183-206.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1):85-98.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: beyond Similarity. Psychological Review, 97: 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., Brown, M., McGlone, M.S. (1993). Conceptual analogies are notautomatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21: 711–719.
Glucksberg, S., Mcglone, M. S. & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36: 50-67.
Glucksberg, G. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 92-96
Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21: 360-378.
Gokcesu, B. S. (2007). Metaphor processing and polysemy. Doctoral Dissertation,Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Gokcesu, B. S. & Bowdle, B. (2003). Conventionality, similarity and the metaphor simile distinction. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1350-1351.
Gokcesu, B. S. (2008) Comparison, categorization and metaphor comprehension.http://141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/101/paper101.pdf.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Haught, C. (2005). A tale of two tropes: on the relation between metaphor and simile.Doctoral Dissertation. Princeton University, Princeton.
Heit, E., (2000). Features of similarity and category-based induction. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Categorization and Similarity. University of Edinburgh, 115-121.
Israel, M., Harding, J. R., Tobin, R., (2004). On simile. In Archard & Kemmer (eds.) Language, Culture, and Mind. 123-135.
Jiang, S. S. (2001). Simile and metaphor: seemingly similar. Journal of Da-Yeh University,10: 61-67.
Jones, L. & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 110-124.
Jones, L. & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55:18-32.
Juska, H. (2007). Missing the mark: similes, metaphors, where they fail, and what it means. Bachelor Thesis. University of Calgary.
Kim, K. S. (2003). The role of similarity and familiarity in the metaphor and simile preference. The 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 211-222.
Kovecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Though (2nd ed.).Cambridge: CUP.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loewenberg, I. (1975). Identifying metaphors. Foundations of Language, 12: 315-338.
Marcos, A. (1997). The tension between Aristotle’s theories and uses of metaphor. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28: 123-139.
Miller, G. A. (1979/1993). Images and models: similes and metaphors. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Plutt, J. & Plutt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Longman, London.139.
Reynolds, R. E., & Ortony, A. (1980). Some issues in the measurement of children’s comprehension of metaphorical language. Child Development, 51: 1110-1119.
Roncero, C., Kennedy, J. M & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletins and Review, 38: 1-16.
Ortony, A. (1978). The Role of Similes and Similarities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86: 161-180.
Perrin, S. G. (1987). Metaphorical revelations: A description of metaphor as the reciprocal engagement of abstract perspectives and concrete phenomena in experience. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2: 251-280.
Pudelko, B., Hailton, E., Legros, D., & Tijus, C. (1999). How context contributes tometaphor understanding. In Bouquet P. et al (eds) Context’99. LNAL 1688. 511-514.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J. (2002). Identifying metaphor in language: a cognitive approach. Style, 36:386-407.
Tversky, A. (1979). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84: 327-352.
Utsumi, A. and Kuwabara, Y. (2005). Interpretive diversity as a source of metaphor-simile distinction. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,2230-2235.
Ustumi, A. (2006). Computational exploration of metaphor comprehension processes.Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2281-2286.
Veale, T & Keane, M. T. (1998). Principal Differences in Structure-mapping Analogy.Sofia: Bulga.
Weiner, E., J. (1984). A knowledge representation approach to understanding metaphors.Computational Linguistics, 10 (1):1-14.
Zharikov, S., & Gentner, D. (2002). Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? In W. D.Gray & C. D.Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Fairfax, VA : George Mason University.
陈勇,刘肇庆.(2009).隐喻政治与政治隐喻:论美国政治家的政治隐喻.《外语教学》,1: 25-28.
龚玉苗,周榕. (2009).隐喻生涯模型及其解释力.《外国语文》, 6: 65-69.
李福印,秦进平. (2007).隐喻与认知研究25年(1980—2004):成绩、问题与展望.《中国外语》, 4: 17-22.
彭宣维. (2007).论明喻和隐喻产生的先后顺序—一项以《诗经》为语料的认知研究.《北京师范大学学报》, 3: 70-78.
任绍曾. (2006).概念隐喻和语篇连贯.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 91-100.
束定芳. (2000).论隐喻的理解过程及特点.《外语教学与研究》, 4: 253-260.
束定芳. (2002).论隐喻的运行机制.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 98-106.
束定芳. (2003).论隐喻与明喻的结构及认知特点.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 102-107.
覃修桂. (2009).英汉语听觉概念隐喻的共性与个性.《外语学刊》, 1: 37-42.
王德春. (2009).论隐喻――指导语言学博士研究生纪实.《外语学刊》, 1: 26-29.
魏在江. (2007).隐喻的主观性与主观化.《解放军外国语学院学报》, 2: 6-11.
徐盛桓. (2007).基于模型的语用推理.《外国语》, 3: 2-9.
周榕,黄希庭. (1999).隐喻理解加工机制的研究.《心理学动态》, 3: 19-25.
张巨. (2003).论明喻与隐喻在句式上的相互转化.《内蒙古民族大学学报》, 4: 89-90.
张辉,杨波. (2009).隐喻和转喻的区分:研究现状和分歧.《外国语文》, 1: 81-88.
Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure mapping and the simile–metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14: 45-51.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Black, M. (1979/1993). More about metaphor. In Ortony A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blasko, D. & Connine, C. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness in metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19 (2): 295-308.
Braun, C. M. J. (1992). A note on the effect of semantic anomaly on the intensity of emotional impact of metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 7(1): 1-10.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 34: 244-286.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112: 193-216.
Campbell, J. D. & Katz, A. N. (2006). On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1): 1-22.
Chiappe, D & Kenndedy J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6 (4): 668-674.
Chiappe, D & Kenndedy J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3 & 4): 249-276.
Chiappe, D. J., Kennedy, M, & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the
conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18: 85-105.
Cohen, L. (1979/1993). The semantics of metaphor. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
Davernport, J. & Keane, M. T. (1999). Similartiy and structural alignment: you can have one without the other. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dur, F. (2006). Understanding metaphor: a cognitive approach focusing on identification and interpretation of metaphors in poetry. Master thesis, Cukurova University, Adana.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7: 155-170.
Gentner, D & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press.
Gentner, D. & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 331-355.
Gentner, D & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52: 45-56.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Development, 59: 47-59.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16: 223-247.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B., Wolff, P, & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (eds.), The Analogical Mind:Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gibb, H., & Wales, R. (1990). Metaphor or simile: Psychological determinants of the differential use of each sentence form. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 5: 199-213.
Gibbs Jr., R.W. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review,99: 572–577.
Gibbs Jr., R.W., Costa Lima, P.L., Francozo, E. (1994). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1189–1211.
Giora Jr., R.W. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8: 183-206.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1):85-98.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: beyond Similarity. Psychological Review, 97: 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., Brown, M., McGlone, M.S. (1993). Conceptual analogies are notautomatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21: 711–719.
Glucksberg, S., Mcglone, M. S. & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36: 50-67.
Glucksberg, G. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 92-96
Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21: 360-378.
Gokcesu, B. S. (2007). Metaphor processing and polysemy. Doctoral Dissertation,Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Gokcesu, B. S. & Bowdle, B. (2003). Conventionality, similarity and the metaphor simile distinction. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1350-1351.
Gokcesu, B. S. (2008) Comparison, categorization and metaphor comprehension.http://141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/101/paper101.pdf.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Haught, C. (2005). A tale of two tropes: on the relation between metaphor and simile.Doctoral Dissertation. Princeton University, Princeton.
Heit, E., (2000). Features of similarity and category-based induction. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Categorization and Similarity. University of Edinburgh, 115-121.
Israel, M., Harding, J. R., Tobin, R., (2004). On simile. In Archard & Kemmer (eds.) Language, Culture, and Mind. 123-135.
Jiang, S. S. (2001). Simile and metaphor: seemingly similar. Journal of Da-Yeh University,10: 61-67.
Jones, L. & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 110-124.
Jones, L. & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55:18-32.
Juska, H. (2007). Missing the mark: similes, metaphors, where they fail, and what it means. Bachelor Thesis. University of Calgary.
Kim, K. S. (2003). The role of similarity and familiarity in the metaphor and simile preference. The 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 211-222.
Kovecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Though (2nd ed.).Cambridge: CUP.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loewenberg, I. (1975). Identifying metaphors. Foundations of Language, 12: 315-338.
Marcos, A. (1997). The tension between Aristotle’s theories and uses of metaphor. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28: 123-139.
Miller, G. A. (1979/1993). Images and models: similes and metaphors. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Plutt, J. & Plutt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Longman, London.139.
Reynolds, R. E., & Ortony, A. (1980). Some issues in the measurement of children’s comprehension of metaphorical language. Child Development, 51: 1110-1119.
Roncero, C., Kennedy, J. M & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletins and Review, 38: 1-16.
Ortony, A. (1978). The Role of Similes and Similarities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86: 161-180.
Perrin, S. G. (1987). Metaphorical revelations: A description of metaphor as the reciprocal engagement of abstract perspectives and concrete phenomena in experience. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2: 251-280.
Pudelko, B., Hailton, E., Legros, D., & Tijus, C. (1999). How context contributes tometaphor understanding. In Bouquet P. et al (eds) Context’99. LNAL 1688. 511-514.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J. (2002). Identifying metaphor in language: a cognitive approach. Style, 36:386-407.
Tversky, A. (1979). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84: 327-352.
Utsumi, A. and Kuwabara, Y. (2005). Interpretive diversity as a source of metaphor-simile distinction. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,2230-2235.
Ustumi, A. (2006). Computational exploration of metaphor comprehension processes.Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2281-2286.
Veale, T & Keane, M. T. (1998). Principal Differences in Structure-mapping Analogy.Sofia: Bulga.
Weiner, E., J. (1984). A knowledge representation approach to understanding metaphors.Computational Linguistics, 10 (1):1-14.
Zharikov, S., & Gentner, D. (2002). Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? In W. D.Gray & C. D.Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Fairfax, VA : George Mason University.
陈勇,刘肇庆.(2009).隐喻政治与政治隐喻:论美国政治家的政治隐喻.《外语教学》,1: 25-28.
龚玉苗,周榕. (2009).隐喻生涯模型及其解释力.《外国语文》, 6: 65-69.
李福印,秦进平. (2007).隐喻与认知研究25年(1980—2004):成绩、问题与展望.《中国外语》, 4: 17-22.
彭宣维. (2007).论明喻和隐喻产生的先后顺序—一项以《诗经》为语料的认知研究.《北京师范大学学报》, 3: 70-78.
任绍曾. (2006).概念隐喻和语篇连贯.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 91-100.
束定芳. (2000).论隐喻的理解过程及特点.《外语教学与研究》, 4: 253-260.
束定芳. (2002).论隐喻的运行机制.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 98-106.
束定芳. (2003).论隐喻与明喻的结构及认知特点.《外语教学与研究》, 2: 102-107.
覃修桂. (2009).英汉语听觉概念隐喻的共性与个性.《外语学刊》, 1: 37-42.
王德春. (2009).论隐喻――指导语言学博士研究生纪实.《外语学刊》, 1: 26-29.
魏在江. (2007).隐喻的主观性与主观化.《解放军外国语学院学报》, 2: 6-11.
徐盛桓. (2007).基于模型的语用推理.《外国语》, 3: 2-9.
周榕,黄希庭. (1999).隐喻理解加工机制的研究.《心理学动态》, 3: 19-25.
张巨. (2003).论明喻与隐喻在句式上的相互转化.《内蒙古民族大学学报》, 4: 89-90.
张辉,杨波. (2009).隐喻和转喻的区分:研究现状和分歧.《外国语文》, 1: 81-88.