多义网络的认知解读
摘要
由于多义词(多义聚合体)的分析和理解对于准确阅读、语言习得、语言教学、机器翻译、辞典编撰、计算机语言学、语义学和语用学都至关重要，因此近年来成为语言学研究的焦点。传统语言学对多义的研究过多地关注其外部原因如历史、文化和社会发展等方面的因素，以及多义词与同形异义词或同形异音词，多义与单义的区分，而没有把握多义的本质与全部。
20世纪80年代认知语言学的兴起，多义成为认知语言学研究的焦点之一。学者们(Geeraerts，1993；Lyons，1995；Taylor，1995；Tuggy，1995；Croft，1998；Tyler & Evans，2001)对多义的程度，多义的表征，多义词义项之间的关系以及多义的定义进行过论述，但是却没有在这些问题上达成一致。有些学者(Croft，1998；Briscoe &Copestake，1995)关注多义词体系的划分，有些(Lakoff，1987；Tyler & Evans，2001)着重研究个别词的意义延伸，特别是介词多义性的研究。这些研究都有利于提高人们对多义的理解和认识。但以认知模型来研究多义词内部语义关系的还不多见。
本文主要以认知语言学的基本理论为基础，构建分析和解释多义网络的理论框架。并在这一理论框架下，对多义的本质和特点进行讨论分析，旨在探讨多义的认知特征和多义网络建构的可能性。
文章分析了认知语言学的范畴观—范畴化是人类认识世界的基本过程。在此过程中，人们以原形理论为基础，按照家族相似性对世界进行范畴化，从而形成不同的范畴和概念。语言结构也是认知范畴，具有原型特征。因此多义范畴就有原型意义和边缘意义之分，即原型意义与扩展意义。扩展意义都是由原型意义通过转喻、隐喻和意象图式派生而来。这些意义又以连锁或放射的形式构成一个相互联结的复杂结构。由于意义之间至少有一个节点相连，因此多义词的意义就构成了一张语义网络。
到目前为止，学者们(Lakoff，Brugman，Taylor)主要侧重对介词的分析。大多数的实义词还需进一步系统研究。Lakoff曾对bachelor，lie和mother的ICM及其认知模型进行了详尽分析，但未详细讨论它们的引申义。本文试图以ICM为理论框架，对汉语的“打”进行个案研究，分析揭示多义网络扩展的机制。由于ICM包括意象图式，命题结构，隐喻，和转喻4个认知模型，它不仅可以储存信息，而且可以对输入的信息进行重组。因而意义更广，覆盖面更大，更适于解释多义网络。汉语“打”的主要认知模型有4个，由这些认知模型衍生出来的子模型大致可以分为25个。每个认
Polysemy, "the association of two or more related senses with a single linguistic form" (Taylor, 1995: 99) has received much attention in recent linguistic semantics, Since the analysis and understanding of polysemy and polysemization processes are significant for accurate reading, language acquisition, language teaching, machine translation, dictionary compiling, computational linguistics, semantics and pragmatics. Traditional approaches to polysemy overemphasized external causes such as historical, cultural and social factors and the distinctions such as polysemy and homonymy, polysemy and monosemy without grasping the nature of polysemy.
With the emergence of cognitive linguistics in the 1980s, polysemy has been one of its foci. Scholars have done research into polysemy, but disagreed with each other on the frequency, representation, behaviours and definition of polysemy. Some of them (Croft, 1998; Briscoe & Copestake, 1995) have paid close attention to the division of the semantic system of polysemous words while some of them (Lakoff, 1987; Tyler & Evans, 2001) are mainly concerned with the semantic extension of some individual words, especially the research into polysemy of prepositions. These studies are helpful for us to understand polysemy. However, the research which systematically studies inner semantic relations of polysemous words is rare in terms of cognitive models.
This thesis sets up the theoretical framework of analyzing and interpreting polysemy network based on fundamental theories of cognitive linguistics. The aim of it is to discuss the nature and features of polysemy and to explore the possibility of the construction of polysemy network.
From a cognitve view, categorization is a fundamental cognitive process. In the course, people conceptualize the world around us based on prototype theory and on the principle of family resemblance, and then form cognitve categories and concepts. And linguistic structure is a kind of cognitive category which bears prototypicality.
Polysemy category, as a kind of linguistic structure, is organized with respect to a primary sense from which the extended meanings are derived via metonymy, metaphor and image schemas. These meanings form an interrelated complex structure by radiation and concatenation. Since all the meanings are related at least one node, and thus they form a polysemy network.
Lakoff has made a detailed analysis of ICM and its cognitive models of Bachelor, Lie
20世纪80年代认知语言学的兴起，多义成为认知语言学研究的焦点之一。学者们(Geeraerts，1993；Lyons，1995；Taylor，1995；Tuggy，1995；Croft，1998；Tyler & Evans，2001)对多义的程度，多义的表征，多义词义项之间的关系以及多义的定义进行过论述，但是却没有在这些问题上达成一致。有些学者(Croft，1998；Briscoe &Copestake，1995)关注多义词体系的划分，有些(Lakoff，1987；Tyler & Evans，2001)着重研究个别词的意义延伸，特别是介词多义性的研究。这些研究都有利于提高人们对多义的理解和认识。但以认知模型来研究多义词内部语义关系的还不多见。
本文主要以认知语言学的基本理论为基础，构建分析和解释多义网络的理论框架。并在这一理论框架下，对多义的本质和特点进行讨论分析，旨在探讨多义的认知特征和多义网络建构的可能性。
文章分析了认知语言学的范畴观—范畴化是人类认识世界的基本过程。在此过程中，人们以原形理论为基础，按照家族相似性对世界进行范畴化，从而形成不同的范畴和概念。语言结构也是认知范畴，具有原型特征。因此多义范畴就有原型意义和边缘意义之分，即原型意义与扩展意义。扩展意义都是由原型意义通过转喻、隐喻和意象图式派生而来。这些意义又以连锁或放射的形式构成一个相互联结的复杂结构。由于意义之间至少有一个节点相连，因此多义词的意义就构成了一张语义网络。
到目前为止，学者们(Lakoff，Brugman，Taylor)主要侧重对介词的分析。大多数的实义词还需进一步系统研究。Lakoff曾对bachelor，lie和mother的ICM及其认知模型进行了详尽分析，但未详细讨论它们的引申义。本文试图以ICM为理论框架，对汉语的“打”进行个案研究，分析揭示多义网络扩展的机制。由于ICM包括意象图式，命题结构，隐喻，和转喻4个认知模型，它不仅可以储存信息，而且可以对输入的信息进行重组。因而意义更广，覆盖面更大，更适于解释多义网络。汉语“打”的主要认知模型有4个，由这些认知模型衍生出来的子模型大致可以分为25个。每个认
Polysemy, "the association of two or more related senses with a single linguistic form" (Taylor, 1995: 99) has received much attention in recent linguistic semantics, Since the analysis and understanding of polysemy and polysemization processes are significant for accurate reading, language acquisition, language teaching, machine translation, dictionary compiling, computational linguistics, semantics and pragmatics. Traditional approaches to polysemy overemphasized external causes such as historical, cultural and social factors and the distinctions such as polysemy and homonymy, polysemy and monosemy without grasping the nature of polysemy.
With the emergence of cognitive linguistics in the 1980s, polysemy has been one of its foci. Scholars have done research into polysemy, but disagreed with each other on the frequency, representation, behaviours and definition of polysemy. Some of them (Croft, 1998; Briscoe & Copestake, 1995) have paid close attention to the division of the semantic system of polysemous words while some of them (Lakoff, 1987; Tyler & Evans, 2001) are mainly concerned with the semantic extension of some individual words, especially the research into polysemy of prepositions. These studies are helpful for us to understand polysemy. However, the research which systematically studies inner semantic relations of polysemous words is rare in terms of cognitive models.
This thesis sets up the theoretical framework of analyzing and interpreting polysemy network based on fundamental theories of cognitive linguistics. The aim of it is to discuss the nature and features of polysemy and to explore the possibility of the construction of polysemy network.
From a cognitve view, categorization is a fundamental cognitive process. In the course, people conceptualize the world around us based on prototype theory and on the principle of family resemblance, and then form cognitve categories and concepts. And linguistic structure is a kind of cognitive category which bears prototypicality.
Polysemy category, as a kind of linguistic structure, is organized with respect to a primary sense from which the extended meanings are derived via metonymy, metaphor and image schemas. These meanings form an interrelated complex structure by radiation and concatenation. Since all the meanings are related at least one node, and thus they form a polysemy network.
Lakoff has made a detailed analysis of ICM and its cognitive models of Bachelor, Lie
引文
[1] Aitchison, J. Words in the mind [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
[2] Allwood, J. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning [A]. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003: 29-65.
[3] Apresjan, Ju D. Regular Polysemy [M]. Mouton, The Hague, the Netherlands, 1973.
[4] Barcelona, Antonio Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
[5] Blank, Andreas. Words and concepts in time: towards Diachronic cognitive Onomasiology [J]. Metaphoric.de. 2001(1).
[6] Brugman, Claudia. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon [M]. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1988.
[7] Cann, Ronnie. Formal Semantics: An introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[8] Chandler, Daniel. Semoiotics for Beginners: Signs Available on http://www.aber.ac.Uk/media/documents/S4B/sem02.html.2006/3/20.
[9] Copestake, A & Briscoe, Ted. Semi-productive Polysemy and sense extension [J]. Journal of Semantics 1995 (12): 15-67.
[10]Croft, William and Alan D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CUP, 2004.
[11] Cuyckens, Hubert and Britta Zawada. Polysemy in cognitive linguistics [C]. John Benjamins, 2001.
[12] Cuyckens, Hubert; Rene Dirven and John Taylor. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[13] David R. Dowty & Robert E. Wall. Introduction to Montague Semantics [M]. D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981.
[14]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. Polysemy and Conceptual Blending [A]. In Polysemy: Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language [C]. Edited by Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, (A volume in the series Trends in Linguistics,) 2003: 79-94.
[15]Fillmore, Charles and Beryl Atkins. Describing Polysemy: The Case of Crawl [A]. In Y. Ravin and C. Leacock. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches [C]. OUP, 2000: 91-110.
[16] Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. The Emptiness of The Lexicon: Critical Reflections on J. Pustejovsky's The Generative Lexicon[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1998.
[17] Geeraerts, Dirk. Vagueness's Puzzles, Polysemy's Vagaries[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1993(3): 223-272.——Diachronic Prototype Semantics[M]. OUP, 1994.
[18] Geiger & Rudzka-Ostyn. 1993. Conceptualiztions and Mental Processing In Language[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[19] Halliday, Michael A.K. & Ruquiaya Hasan. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective[M], 2nd, Oxford: OUP, 1989.
[20] Heine, Bernd. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[21] Heine, Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[22] Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[23] Klein, D. E. and Murphy. G. L. Paper Has Been My Ruin: Conceptual Relations Of Polysemous Senses[J]. Journal of Memory and Language 47(2002):548-570.
[24] Klepousniotou Ekaterini. The processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon[J]. Brain and Language, 2002(81): 205-223.
[25] Kovecses, Z. & G. radden. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view." Cognitive linguistics[J] 9, 1998(1): 37-77.
[26] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1: Theoretical Perquisites[M]. Stanford, 1987. ——Reference-Point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993 (4): 1-38.——Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Walter De Gruyter, 1999.
[27] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago University Press, 1980.
[28] Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.——The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. In A, Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (second edition)[C]. CUP, 1993.
[29] Lan Chun. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
[30] Leech, Geoffrey N. Semantics[M]. 李瑞华等(译). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press, 1985.
[31]Levelt, J.M. Speaking: from Intention to Articulation [M]. Cambridge Masschusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
[32]Lyons, J. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1995.
[33]Martin Hilpert, Keeping an Eye on the Data: Metonymies and Their Patterns [A], In Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Thomas Gries (eds), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Vol 1. Metaphor and metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.
[34]Niemeier, S. "Straight from the heart—metonymic and metaphorical exploitations [A]." In metaphor and Metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [C], A.Barcelona (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000: 195-213.
[35]Nerlich, Brigitte and David D. Clarke. Ambiguites We Live By: Towards A Pragmatics of Polysemy [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. 2001(33): 1-20.
[36]Nerlich, Brigitte; Zazie Tood; Vimala Herman and David D. Clarke. Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[37]Nunberg, G. D. "Transfers of Meaning" [J] Journal of semantics 1: 1995:109-132.
[38]Oakley, Todd. Image Schema [A] in the Handbook of cognitive linguistics [C]. Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds).OUP, 2004.
[39]Ostler, N. and Atkins, B. Predictable Meaning Shift: Some Linguistic Properties of Lexical Implication Rules [A], In: Pustejovsky, J., Bergler, S. (Eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation [C], ACL SIGLEX Workshop Berkeley, California, 1991.
[40]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M], MIT Press, Cambridge MA, U.S.A, 1995.
[41]Robins, R. H. A Short History of Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1967/1997.
[42] E. Rosch and C.B. Mervis. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology. 1975(7): 573--605.
[43]Rosch, E., Mervis, C, Gray, W., Johnson, D. and Boyes-Braem, P. "Basic Objects in Natural Categories" [J]. Cognitive Psychology. 1976(8): 382-439.
[44]Ruhl, Charles. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics [M]. New York: State university of New York Press, 1989.
[45]Saeed, J. I. Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1997.
[46] Sandra, Dominiek & Rice, Sally. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind-the linguist's or the language user's?[J] Cognitive Linguistics 6. 1995(1): 89-130.
[47] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth,[1916] 1983.
[48] Sperb, D & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1986/1995.
[49] Sweetser, Eve, From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[50] Taylor, John. Linguistic Categorization (second edition)[M]. OUP, 1995.
[51] Taylor, John. Polysemy's paradoxes[J]. Language Sciences 2003(25): 637-655.
[52] Tuggy, David. Ambiguity, Polysemy and Vagueness[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1993(3): 273-290.
[53] Tuggy, David. Linguistic Evidence for Polysemy in the Mind: A Response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra[J]. Cognitive linguistics, 10, 1999(4): 343-368.
[54] Turner, Mark and Gilles Fauconnier. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Binding[A]. In Metonymy and Metaphor at the Crossroads[C]. Edited by Antonio Barcelona. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000: 133-145.
[55] Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvan. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of over. Language[J] December 2001, 77.4, 724-765.——The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. CUP, 2003.
[56] Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967.
[57] Ungerer, Jans-Jorg; & Friedrich Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1996
[58] Valera, H. Salvador. "Conversion vs. unmarked word-class change"[J]. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguisticsl, 2004(1): 22-53.
[59] Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. London: Routledge. 1999.
[60] 白解红．多义聚合现象的认知研究[J]．外语与外语教学，2001(12)：9-10．
[61] 程琪龙．认知语言学概论：语言的神经认知基础[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999．
[62] 辞源[Z]．商务出版社，1981．
[63] 姜胜．试论规则多义现象聚合体[J]．外语学刊，2001(2)：44-48．
[64] 李锡胤．英语多义现象举隅[J]．外语学刊，1988(2)：1-13．
[65] 陆国强．现代英语词汇学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1983／1998．
[66] 吕乐，戴炜华．论词语语义结构的进化[J]．外语与外语教学，2000(8)：2-5．
[67] 潘本善．康熙词典[Z]．中国书籍出版社，1996．
[68] 彭宣维．认知发展、隐喻映射与词义范畴的延伸[J]．北京师范大学学报(社科版)2004(3)：46-52．
[69] 田兵．多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野——探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式(一)[J]．现代外语26，2003(4)．
[70] 王寅，李弘．体验哲学和认知语言学对句法成因的解释[J]．外语学刊，2003(1)：1-8．
[71] 现代汉语词典[Z]．外语教学与研究出版社，2002．
[72] 许慎．说文解字新订[Z]．臧克和，王平(订)．北京：中华书局，2002．
[73] 周国辉．论认知语境对汉英语多义性的解释力[J]．外语教学，2005(3)：34-36．
[2] Allwood, J. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning [A]. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003: 29-65.
[3] Apresjan, Ju D. Regular Polysemy [M]. Mouton, The Hague, the Netherlands, 1973.
[4] Barcelona, Antonio Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
[5] Blank, Andreas. Words and concepts in time: towards Diachronic cognitive Onomasiology [J]. Metaphoric.de. 2001(1).
[6] Brugman, Claudia. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon [M]. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1988.
[7] Cann, Ronnie. Formal Semantics: An introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[8] Chandler, Daniel. Semoiotics for Beginners: Signs Available on http://www.aber.ac.Uk/media/documents/S4B/sem02.html.2006/3/20.
[9] Copestake, A & Briscoe, Ted. Semi-productive Polysemy and sense extension [J]. Journal of Semantics 1995 (12): 15-67.
[10]Croft, William and Alan D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CUP, 2004.
[11] Cuyckens, Hubert and Britta Zawada. Polysemy in cognitive linguistics [C]. John Benjamins, 2001.
[12] Cuyckens, Hubert; Rene Dirven and John Taylor. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[13] David R. Dowty & Robert E. Wall. Introduction to Montague Semantics [M]. D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981.
[14]Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. Polysemy and Conceptual Blending [A]. In Polysemy: Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language [C]. Edited by Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, (A volume in the series Trends in Linguistics,) 2003: 79-94.
[15]Fillmore, Charles and Beryl Atkins. Describing Polysemy: The Case of Crawl [A]. In Y. Ravin and C. Leacock. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches [C]. OUP, 2000: 91-110.
[16] Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. The Emptiness of The Lexicon: Critical Reflections on J. Pustejovsky's The Generative Lexicon[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1998.
[17] Geeraerts, Dirk. Vagueness's Puzzles, Polysemy's Vagaries[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1993(3): 223-272.——Diachronic Prototype Semantics[M]. OUP, 1994.
[18] Geiger & Rudzka-Ostyn. 1993. Conceptualiztions and Mental Processing In Language[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[19] Halliday, Michael A.K. & Ruquiaya Hasan. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective[M], 2nd, Oxford: OUP, 1989.
[20] Heine, Bernd. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[21] Heine, Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[22] Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[23] Klein, D. E. and Murphy. G. L. Paper Has Been My Ruin: Conceptual Relations Of Polysemous Senses[J]. Journal of Memory and Language 47(2002):548-570.
[24] Klepousniotou Ekaterini. The processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon[J]. Brain and Language, 2002(81): 205-223.
[25] Kovecses, Z. & G. radden. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view." Cognitive linguistics[J] 9, 1998(1): 37-77.
[26] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1: Theoretical Perquisites[M]. Stanford, 1987. ——Reference-Point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993 (4): 1-38.——Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Walter De Gruyter, 1999.
[27] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago University Press, 1980.
[28] Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.——The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[A]. In A, Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (second edition)[C]. CUP, 1993.
[29] Lan Chun. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
[30] Leech, Geoffrey N. Semantics[M]. 李瑞华等(译). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press, 1985.
[31]Levelt, J.M. Speaking: from Intention to Articulation [M]. Cambridge Masschusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
[32]Lyons, J. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1995.
[33]Martin Hilpert, Keeping an Eye on the Data: Metonymies and Their Patterns [A], In Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Thomas Gries (eds), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Vol 1. Metaphor and metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.
[34]Niemeier, S. "Straight from the heart—metonymic and metaphorical exploitations [A]." In metaphor and Metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [C], A.Barcelona (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000: 195-213.
[35]Nerlich, Brigitte and David D. Clarke. Ambiguites We Live By: Towards A Pragmatics of Polysemy [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. 2001(33): 1-20.
[36]Nerlich, Brigitte; Zazie Tood; Vimala Herman and David D. Clarke. Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[37]Nunberg, G. D. "Transfers of Meaning" [J] Journal of semantics 1: 1995:109-132.
[38]Oakley, Todd. Image Schema [A] in the Handbook of cognitive linguistics [C]. Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds).OUP, 2004.
[39]Ostler, N. and Atkins, B. Predictable Meaning Shift: Some Linguistic Properties of Lexical Implication Rules [A], In: Pustejovsky, J., Bergler, S. (Eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation [C], ACL SIGLEX Workshop Berkeley, California, 1991.
[40]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M], MIT Press, Cambridge MA, U.S.A, 1995.
[41]Robins, R. H. A Short History of Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1967/1997.
[42] E. Rosch and C.B. Mervis. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology. 1975(7): 573--605.
[43]Rosch, E., Mervis, C, Gray, W., Johnson, D. and Boyes-Braem, P. "Basic Objects in Natural Categories" [J]. Cognitive Psychology. 1976(8): 382-439.
[44]Ruhl, Charles. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics [M]. New York: State university of New York Press, 1989.
[45]Saeed, J. I. Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1997.
[46] Sandra, Dominiek & Rice, Sally. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind-the linguist's or the language user's?[J] Cognitive Linguistics 6. 1995(1): 89-130.
[47] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth,[1916] 1983.
[48] Sperb, D & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1986/1995.
[49] Sweetser, Eve, From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[50] Taylor, John. Linguistic Categorization (second edition)[M]. OUP, 1995.
[51] Taylor, John. Polysemy's paradoxes[J]. Language Sciences 2003(25): 637-655.
[52] Tuggy, David. Ambiguity, Polysemy and Vagueness[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1993(3): 273-290.
[53] Tuggy, David. Linguistic Evidence for Polysemy in the Mind: A Response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra[J]. Cognitive linguistics, 10, 1999(4): 343-368.
[54] Turner, Mark and Gilles Fauconnier. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Binding[A]. In Metonymy and Metaphor at the Crossroads[C]. Edited by Antonio Barcelona. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000: 133-145.
[55] Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvan. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of over. Language[J] December 2001, 77.4, 724-765.——The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. CUP, 2003.
[56] Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967.
[57] Ungerer, Jans-Jorg; & Friedrich Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 1996
[58] Valera, H. Salvador. "Conversion vs. unmarked word-class change"[J]. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguisticsl, 2004(1): 22-53.
[59] Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. London: Routledge. 1999.
[60] 白解红．多义聚合现象的认知研究[J]．外语与外语教学，2001(12)：9-10．
[61] 程琪龙．认知语言学概论：语言的神经认知基础[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999．
[62] 辞源[Z]．商务出版社，1981．
[63] 姜胜．试论规则多义现象聚合体[J]．外语学刊，2001(2)：44-48．
[64] 李锡胤．英语多义现象举隅[J]．外语学刊，1988(2)：1-13．
[65] 陆国强．现代英语词汇学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1983／1998．
[66] 吕乐，戴炜华．论词语语义结构的进化[J]．外语与外语教学，2000(8)：2-5．
[67] 潘本善．康熙词典[Z]．中国书籍出版社，1996．
[68] 彭宣维．认知发展、隐喻映射与词义范畴的延伸[J]．北京师范大学学报(社科版)2004(3)：46-52．
[69] 田兵．多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野——探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式(一)[J]．现代外语26，2003(4)．
[70] 王寅，李弘．体验哲学和认知语言学对句法成因的解释[J]．外语学刊，2003(1)：1-8．
[71] 现代汉语词典[Z]．外语教学与研究出版社，2002．
[72] 许慎．说文解字新订[Z]．臧克和，王平(订)．北京：中华书局，2002．
[73] 周国辉．论认知语境对汉英语多义性的解释力[J]．外语教学，2005(3)：34-36．