认知语义视阈下英语逻辑转喻的意义识解研究
|
摘要
逻辑转喻是一种较为特殊的句法现象。由于句法结构中省略了一个表达具体事件意义的动词，导致意义表达上的不饱和性和多义性。这种句法结构和语义特征的不一致性引起了学界的关注。
关于逻辑转喻的研究，遵循句法组合原则的意义列举法和意义预设法忽略语言的简洁性和创造性,现已较少采用。目前，大部分研究集中于生成词库视角，通过语义类型压制机制分析词汇内部的物性结构的方法来解读逻辑转喻中隐性动词的事件意义，这种方法一定程度上解决了逻辑转喻的语义模糊性问题。然而，这种意义解读机制，在适用性上具有局限性；并且生成词库理论没有涉及逻辑转喻意义的本质及生成理据等核心和深层次的问题。而国内外学者逐渐开始采用多视角、多理论研究逻辑转喻，如神经语言学和心理语言学通过实证或语料寻找一些使用规律；语用学将逻辑转喻看作是一种言语行为，通过话语推导找出隐性表达的事件意义。而从认知视角研究逻辑转喻也逐渐成为一种趋势，逻辑转喻是转喻性认知加工作用在句法结构中的意义表达，本质上是一种认知现象。
因此，本文在前人研究成果的基础上，追随学术研究的主流，在认知语义视阈下基于认知语义学的相关理论,分析和阐释逻辑转喻的意义本质及意义识解等内容。研究问题主要包括：
（1）基于语料库的真实语料，逻辑转喻具有语义特征？
（2）逻辑转喻的意义本质是什么？
（3）哪些因素以何种方式影响逻辑转喻的意义识解？逻辑转喻意义识解是怎样的一个动态过程？
（4）如何通过意义识解过程解读语料库中典型逻辑转喻的意义？
对于逻辑转喻的认知语义视角，本研究从语言的使用观、意义的认知观和意义的语境观等三方面进行理论阐述。语言的使用观讨论语言形式和意义的关系，句法形式是非自治的，服务于意义并体现意义。意义的认知观说明语义不只是客观的真值条件，还与人的主观认识以及无限的知识系统密切相关，是主客结合的。转喻作为人类最基础的一种认知方式，为概念意义的表达和理解提供了有效的途径。而语言之所以能够表达意义是因为特定情景和语境对语言的意义和结构具有限制和影响；脱离语境因素的语言研究不符合语言使用的本质。基于这三方面的分析，形成了符合逻辑转喻研究的认知语义视角。
本研究基于认知语义视角考察了逻辑转喻意义的认知本质，并通过理论推导建构了逻辑转喻的意义识解模型。通过系统阐述和推理，得出以下结论：
（1）逻辑转喻是语篇层面的语言使用，是由语言本身及语篇语境等因素制约而形成的事件动词省略的句法结构，是意义层面上的语义压缩，隐性动词的事件意义在额外的转喻性认知加工中得以实现。因此，逻辑转喻可以理解成有转喻性认知加工参与的概念意义的实现过程。
（2）由于逻辑转喻的意义实现过程必须要有转喻认知加工的参与，那么逻辑转喻的意义在本质上是认知的。逻辑转喻是转喻性认知加工机制作用在句法结构中而产生的语义表达。基于语言的使用和语言表达的经济性原则，在语言内部及外部的各种语境因素的制约下，遵循心理认知上的完形原则和信息激活机制，逻辑转喻在意义表达和解读中都离不开转喻性认知机制作用。逻辑转喻的认知性语义体现了概念转喻对句法结构的作用和影响，满足了语篇布局上的衔接和连贯关系，并且是一种语义表达的创新或填补语言空缺的手段。因而，形式简化导致意义不饱和可以认为是认知机制作用的结果，基于认知机制的分析可以更好的理解和掌握逻辑转喻的意义本质。
（3）从意义-认知-形式的体现过程来看，逻辑转喻的意义识解离不开它所处的各种语境因素，也需要转喻性概念加工过程。因此，它的意义识解过程可以描述为：转喻性认知加工是逻辑转喻意义识解的核心环节，逻辑转喻的语言形式是认知加工的载体，其中名词短语（NP2）所表达的具体实体意义作为转喻加工的本体义概念和出发点，在认知框架内激活一系列与之临近的概念成分，为逻辑转喻意义解读提供一系列可能的心理可及，为意义的确立提供了备选。认知加工机制的各种外部语境因素排除不符合要求的概念意义，并最终触发和引导逻辑转喻意义的确定。
（4）具体分析语料库中的典型逻辑转喻的意义识解过程，发现三类动词构成的逻辑转喻具有不同的意义识解模式。逻辑转喻的意义同时取决于语言使用者的转喻性认知加工以及认知之外的语境因素的共同制约。两者缺一不可。而逻辑转喻中名词短语的概念意义为逻辑转喻意义识解提供了心理现实。因此，可以证明逻辑转喻的这个意义识解模型具有一定解释力和可操作性等特点。
本研究基于认知-语义视角阐述逻辑转喻意义的认知本质，建构逻辑转喻的意义识解模型，并通过模型分析语料库中真实语料。因而，本研究是一次基于真实语言的理论探索，具有一定的理论价值和应用价值。
Logical metonymy is a special linguistic expression combined with an implicitevent verb in form and an unsaturated， polysemous feature in meaning. Thenon-correspondence between the syntactic structure and its semantic interpretationhas attracted linguists’attention.
Reviewing the previous studies on logical metonymy, some follow the principleof compositionality but ignore the simplicity and creativity of language. Therefore,those studies become less acceptable and then more studies challenge thecompositionality rule and base their analysis on Generative Lexicon proposed byPustejovsky. The analysis with qualia semantic structure and type coercionmechanism really brings some valuable explanations about logical metonymy.However, the limitation of the approach cannot be neglected in terms of the range ofapplication and the depth of interpretation. As a result, it is necessary to explore thenature and the meaning of logical metonymy from other perspectives，such asneurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics and so on. A cognitive perspective isalso a strand of the mainstream and in this field logical metonymy can be regarded asa cognitive phenomenon.
The present study stresses on logical metonymy from a cognitive-semanticperspective. With introspection and data analysis, the study aims at exploring thecognitive nature of the meaning of logical metonymy, describing the dynamicmeaning construal process and answering the following research questions:
(1) What semantic features does logical metonymy reflect based on the data fromBNC corpus?
(2) What is the nature of the meaning of logical metonymy?
(3) What factors in what manners are involved in meaning construal of logicalmetonymy? What process is conducted to construe the meaning of logical metonymy?
(4) In what way does the meaning-construal process interpret the typicalexamples of logical metonymy from BNC?
The cognitive-semantic framework for the present study is grounded on threetheoretical assumptions. First, language is usage-based. Syntactic form is only used toserve and to realize its corresponding meaning. Second, meaning is construed not only based on truth-conditions, but also related to subjective cognition and infiniteknowledge system. Metonymy, one of the most basic cognitive devices, provides aneffective approach to conceptual meaning. Third, contextual factors can influence ordetermine the meaning and the form of linguistic expressions. Without context, thereis no meaning at all.
Based on the three points, the study explores the answers to research questionsand comes to the following conclusions.
(1) Logical metonymy is a type of language use on the textual stratumdetermined by language itself and contextual factors. Specifically, due to the syntacticdefault and the corresponding semantic ambiguity, logical metonymy can beinterpreted as a meaning realization with the involvement of metonymic mechanism.
(2) The meaning of logical metonymy is cognitive in nature. Logical metonymyis the result of metonymic operations to syntactic structures since the operationsdominate the semantic realization and identification of logical metonymy. This can betraced on the basis of the economic principle of language use, the modification ofinternal and external contextual elements, and the psychological reality of gestaltprinciple and information activation. Cognitive nature of meaning reflects the effectof conceptual metonymy on the syntactic form, satisfies coherent and cohesiverequirements in text, and also effectively creates a new way to express meaning andfill up meaning gaps. As a result, this metonymic process is necessary indisambiguating the polysemy caused by the syntactic structure. Only with thecognitive participation, can we easily identify the implicit meaning and better graspthe nature of the form.
(3) The meaning-construal process involves many factors. Contextualenvironment in which logical metonymy exists and the metonymic mechanism areimportant among them. The detailed process can be described in this way: ametonymic operation is the core of meaning-construing process in which a sourcemeaning deriving from the concept of noun phrase (NP2) is contiguously related to agroup of potential meanings in the same cognitive model by means of a linguisticform which functions as a linguistic vehicle. With contextual triggers to the process,only one link is available and confirmed as the target meaning while the otherpotential links are not activated and then constrained. In this way, the implicit eventverb of logical metonymy is identified and the polysemous meaning is dissolved.
(4) The analysis to typical examples of logical metonymy from BNC proves that the meaning-construal process is feasible and applicable. Metonymic skill of language
users and contextual factors both contribute to the meaning construal of logicalmetonymy although they fulfill different functions in logical metonymy with differenttypes of eventual verbs.
The study can be summarized as a theoretical investigation based on the real data.It consists of the exploration of the semantic nature of logical metonymy, theconstruction of a meaning-construal model and the verification of the model with realdata from BNC. In conclusion, the cognitive-semantic perspective adopted, themeaning-construal model constructed and the application to ananysis of corpus dataall contribute to the study of logical metontymy to some extent.
关于逻辑转喻的研究，遵循句法组合原则的意义列举法和意义预设法忽略语言的简洁性和创造性,现已较少采用。目前，大部分研究集中于生成词库视角，通过语义类型压制机制分析词汇内部的物性结构的方法来解读逻辑转喻中隐性动词的事件意义，这种方法一定程度上解决了逻辑转喻的语义模糊性问题。然而，这种意义解读机制，在适用性上具有局限性；并且生成词库理论没有涉及逻辑转喻意义的本质及生成理据等核心和深层次的问题。而国内外学者逐渐开始采用多视角、多理论研究逻辑转喻，如神经语言学和心理语言学通过实证或语料寻找一些使用规律；语用学将逻辑转喻看作是一种言语行为，通过话语推导找出隐性表达的事件意义。而从认知视角研究逻辑转喻也逐渐成为一种趋势，逻辑转喻是转喻性认知加工作用在句法结构中的意义表达，本质上是一种认知现象。
因此，本文在前人研究成果的基础上，追随学术研究的主流，在认知语义视阈下基于认知语义学的相关理论,分析和阐释逻辑转喻的意义本质及意义识解等内容。研究问题主要包括：
（1）基于语料库的真实语料，逻辑转喻具有语义特征？
（2）逻辑转喻的意义本质是什么？
（3）哪些因素以何种方式影响逻辑转喻的意义识解？逻辑转喻意义识解是怎样的一个动态过程？
（4）如何通过意义识解过程解读语料库中典型逻辑转喻的意义？
对于逻辑转喻的认知语义视角，本研究从语言的使用观、意义的认知观和意义的语境观等三方面进行理论阐述。语言的使用观讨论语言形式和意义的关系，句法形式是非自治的，服务于意义并体现意义。意义的认知观说明语义不只是客观的真值条件，还与人的主观认识以及无限的知识系统密切相关，是主客结合的。转喻作为人类最基础的一种认知方式，为概念意义的表达和理解提供了有效的途径。而语言之所以能够表达意义是因为特定情景和语境对语言的意义和结构具有限制和影响；脱离语境因素的语言研究不符合语言使用的本质。基于这三方面的分析，形成了符合逻辑转喻研究的认知语义视角。
本研究基于认知语义视角考察了逻辑转喻意义的认知本质，并通过理论推导建构了逻辑转喻的意义识解模型。通过系统阐述和推理，得出以下结论：
（1）逻辑转喻是语篇层面的语言使用，是由语言本身及语篇语境等因素制约而形成的事件动词省略的句法结构，是意义层面上的语义压缩，隐性动词的事件意义在额外的转喻性认知加工中得以实现。因此，逻辑转喻可以理解成有转喻性认知加工参与的概念意义的实现过程。
（2）由于逻辑转喻的意义实现过程必须要有转喻认知加工的参与，那么逻辑转喻的意义在本质上是认知的。逻辑转喻是转喻性认知加工机制作用在句法结构中而产生的语义表达。基于语言的使用和语言表达的经济性原则，在语言内部及外部的各种语境因素的制约下，遵循心理认知上的完形原则和信息激活机制，逻辑转喻在意义表达和解读中都离不开转喻性认知机制作用。逻辑转喻的认知性语义体现了概念转喻对句法结构的作用和影响，满足了语篇布局上的衔接和连贯关系，并且是一种语义表达的创新或填补语言空缺的手段。因而，形式简化导致意义不饱和可以认为是认知机制作用的结果，基于认知机制的分析可以更好的理解和掌握逻辑转喻的意义本质。
（3）从意义-认知-形式的体现过程来看，逻辑转喻的意义识解离不开它所处的各种语境因素，也需要转喻性概念加工过程。因此，它的意义识解过程可以描述为：转喻性认知加工是逻辑转喻意义识解的核心环节，逻辑转喻的语言形式是认知加工的载体，其中名词短语（NP2）所表达的具体实体意义作为转喻加工的本体义概念和出发点，在认知框架内激活一系列与之临近的概念成分，为逻辑转喻意义解读提供一系列可能的心理可及，为意义的确立提供了备选。认知加工机制的各种外部语境因素排除不符合要求的概念意义，并最终触发和引导逻辑转喻意义的确定。
（4）具体分析语料库中的典型逻辑转喻的意义识解过程，发现三类动词构成的逻辑转喻具有不同的意义识解模式。逻辑转喻的意义同时取决于语言使用者的转喻性认知加工以及认知之外的语境因素的共同制约。两者缺一不可。而逻辑转喻中名词短语的概念意义为逻辑转喻意义识解提供了心理现实。因此，可以证明逻辑转喻的这个意义识解模型具有一定解释力和可操作性等特点。
本研究基于认知-语义视角阐述逻辑转喻意义的认知本质，建构逻辑转喻的意义识解模型，并通过模型分析语料库中真实语料。因而，本研究是一次基于真实语言的理论探索，具有一定的理论价值和应用价值。
Logical metonymy is a special linguistic expression combined with an implicitevent verb in form and an unsaturated， polysemous feature in meaning. Thenon-correspondence between the syntactic structure and its semantic interpretationhas attracted linguists’attention.
Reviewing the previous studies on logical metonymy, some follow the principleof compositionality but ignore the simplicity and creativity of language. Therefore,those studies become less acceptable and then more studies challenge thecompositionality rule and base their analysis on Generative Lexicon proposed byPustejovsky. The analysis with qualia semantic structure and type coercionmechanism really brings some valuable explanations about logical metonymy.However, the limitation of the approach cannot be neglected in terms of the range ofapplication and the depth of interpretation. As a result, it is necessary to explore thenature and the meaning of logical metonymy from other perspectives，such asneurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics and so on. A cognitive perspective isalso a strand of the mainstream and in this field logical metonymy can be regarded asa cognitive phenomenon.
The present study stresses on logical metonymy from a cognitive-semanticperspective. With introspection and data analysis, the study aims at exploring thecognitive nature of the meaning of logical metonymy, describing the dynamicmeaning construal process and answering the following research questions:
(1) What semantic features does logical metonymy reflect based on the data fromBNC corpus?
(2) What is the nature of the meaning of logical metonymy?
(3) What factors in what manners are involved in meaning construal of logicalmetonymy? What process is conducted to construe the meaning of logical metonymy?
(4) In what way does the meaning-construal process interpret the typicalexamples of logical metonymy from BNC?
The cognitive-semantic framework for the present study is grounded on threetheoretical assumptions. First, language is usage-based. Syntactic form is only used toserve and to realize its corresponding meaning. Second, meaning is construed not only based on truth-conditions, but also related to subjective cognition and infiniteknowledge system. Metonymy, one of the most basic cognitive devices, provides aneffective approach to conceptual meaning. Third, contextual factors can influence ordetermine the meaning and the form of linguistic expressions. Without context, thereis no meaning at all.
Based on the three points, the study explores the answers to research questionsand comes to the following conclusions.
(1) Logical metonymy is a type of language use on the textual stratumdetermined by language itself and contextual factors. Specifically, due to the syntacticdefault and the corresponding semantic ambiguity, logical metonymy can beinterpreted as a meaning realization with the involvement of metonymic mechanism.
(2) The meaning of logical metonymy is cognitive in nature. Logical metonymyis the result of metonymic operations to syntactic structures since the operationsdominate the semantic realization and identification of logical metonymy. This can betraced on the basis of the economic principle of language use, the modification ofinternal and external contextual elements, and the psychological reality of gestaltprinciple and information activation. Cognitive nature of meaning reflects the effectof conceptual metonymy on the syntactic form, satisfies coherent and cohesiverequirements in text, and also effectively creates a new way to express meaning andfill up meaning gaps. As a result, this metonymic process is necessary indisambiguating the polysemy caused by the syntactic structure. Only with thecognitive participation, can we easily identify the implicit meaning and better graspthe nature of the form.
(3) The meaning-construal process involves many factors. Contextualenvironment in which logical metonymy exists and the metonymic mechanism areimportant among them. The detailed process can be described in this way: ametonymic operation is the core of meaning-construing process in which a sourcemeaning deriving from the concept of noun phrase (NP2) is contiguously related to agroup of potential meanings in the same cognitive model by means of a linguisticform which functions as a linguistic vehicle. With contextual triggers to the process,only one link is available and confirmed as the target meaning while the otherpotential links are not activated and then constrained. In this way, the implicit eventverb of logical metonymy is identified and the polysemous meaning is dissolved.
(4) The analysis to typical examples of logical metonymy from BNC proves that the meaning-construal process is feasible and applicable. Metonymic skill of language
users and contextual factors both contribute to the meaning construal of logicalmetonymy although they fulfill different functions in logical metonymy with differenttypes of eventual verbs.
The study can be summarized as a theoretical investigation based on the real data.It consists of the exploration of the semantic nature of logical metonymy, theconstruction of a meaning-construal model and the verification of the model with realdata from BNC. In conclusion, the cognitive-semantic perspective adopted, themeaning-construal model constructed and the application to ananysis of corpus dataall contribute to the study of logical metontymy to some extent.
引文
Anderson, R. A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory [J].Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior,1983(3)：261-295.
Asher, N. Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge University Press,2010.
Baggio, G., Lambalgen, M. van,&Hagoort, P. The processing consequencesof compositionality [A]. In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality.New York：Oxford University Press,2012.
Barcelona, A. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [C].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Barcelona, A. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a fewmodest proposals [A]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Driven&K.-U.Panther (eds.).Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of GunterRadden [C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.2003:223-255.
Barcelona, A. Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operationof metonymy in grammar and discourse [A]. In Johannesson, N-L., Minugh,D.&Alm-Arvius, C.(eds.) Selected Papers from the2008StockholmMetaphor Festival (provisional title). Stockholm: StockholmUniversity.2011.
Barcelona，A.&Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. Defining Metonymy in CognitiveLinguistics: Towards a Consensus View.2011.
Berry, M., Butler, C. Fawcett, R., et al. Meaning and form: systemicfunctional interpretations (meaning and choice in language: Studiesfor Michael Halliday)(ed.) Ablex Publishing Corporation.1996.
Beaugrande, Bobert De.&Dressler, W. Introduction to text linguistics[M]. London: Longmans,1981.
Bloomfield，L.语言论[M].袁家骅、赵世开、甘世福译.北京：商务印书馆，1987.
Briscoe T.， Copestake, A.&Boguraev, B. Enjoy the paper: Lexicalsemantics via lexicology [A]. In: Proc.13th International Conferenceon Computational Linguistics (COLING-90), Helsinki,1990:42-47.
Brown, G.&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis[M].Cambridge University Press,1983.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structure [M].The Hague/Paris: Mouton,1957.
Chomsky, N. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1964.
Chomsky,N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Foris: Dordrecht,1981.
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program [M]. MIT Press: Cambridge,1995.
Copestake, A.&Briscoe, E. J. Semi-productive polysemy and senseextension [J]. Journal of Semantics,1995,12(1):15-67.
Copestake, A. The semi-generative lexicon: Limits on lexical productivity.In Proceedings of the first international workshop on generativeapproaches to the lexicon[C].Geneva,2001.
Collins, A. M.&Loftus, E. F. A spreading activation theory of semanticprocessing [J]. Psychological Review,1975(82):407-428.
Cook, G. Discourse [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
Croft, W. Typology and universals, second edition.(Cambridge Textbooksin Linguistics.)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Croft, W. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors andmetonymies. Cognitive Linguistics1993(4):335-370.
Croft，W.&Curse，D. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.2004.
Curse, D. Lexical Semantics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.
Evans, V.&Green, M. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M].Edinburg: Edinburg University Press,2006.
Feyaerts, K. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction betweenmetaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In: A. Barcelona (ed.),Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: de Gruyter,2000:59-78.
Fillmore, C. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [M].Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety,1975:123-131.
Fillmore, J. Frame Semantics [J]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul,Hanshin Publishing Co.,1982:111-137.
Firth,J.R. Personality and language in society[J].SociologicalReview,1950(42):37-52.(reprinted in J.R. Firth1957)
Firth, J.R. A synopsis of linguistic theory1930-1955[A]. In Studies inLinguistic Analysis, pp. Oxford: Philological Society,1957:1-32.
Fodor, J. A.&Lepore, E. The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections onJames Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry,1998(2),269–288.
Frisson, E.&McIlee,B. Complement coercion is not modulated bycompetition: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,2008(1):1一11.
Garfinkel,H. Studies in Ethnomethodology[M].Cambrdge: Polity,1967.
Geeraerts, D. Cognitive grammar and the history of lexicalsemantics[A].In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn(ed.).Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:647-678.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S.&Bakema, P.The Structure of LexicalVariation, Meaning, Naming,and Context[M].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1994.
Gibbs，R.W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, andUnderstanding [M]. Cambridge University Press,1994.
Givon, T. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1990(2).
Godard, J.&Jayez，D. Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena[J]. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter ofthe ACL. Utrecht1993:168–177.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Interpretation of the Functional Relationship betweenLanguage and Social Structure [A](manuscript1976). Published as EineInterpretation der funktionalen Beziehung zwischen Sprache undSozialstruktur'. Uta Quasthoff (ed.) Sprachstruktur-Sozialstruktur:zur linguistischen Theorienbildung. Konigstein/Ts.: Scriptor.1978.pp.3-42.)
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretationof Language and Meaning [M]. London&Baltimore: Edward Arnold&University Park Press，1978.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nded.)[M].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R.Language, Context and Text: a social semioticperspective [M]. Oxford,1989.
Halliday，M.A.K.，Matthiessen，C. Construing Experience Through Meaning[M].北京：世界图书出版社，2008.
Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M. Appelt, D.&Martin, P. Interpretation asabduction [J]. Artificial Intelligence,1993(63):69-142.
Huitt, W. Motivation to Learn: an overview [A]. Educational PsychologyInteractive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University,2001.
Jackendoff, Ray. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,1997.
Johnson, M. The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination,and reason [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Katz，J.&Fodor，J. The structure of a semantic theory [J]. Language，1963（2）：170-210.
Kleiber, G. Polysemy, transfers of meaning and integrated metonymy [A].In Rakova, M., Peth, G.&Rákosi, C.(Eds.) The Cognitive Basis ofPolysemy. Peter Lang.2007:157-186.
Koch, P. Frame and contiguity. On the cognitive bases of metonymy andcertain types of word formation [A]. Panther,K.-U.&Radden, G.(eds.)Metonymy in Language and Thought[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:Benjamins,1999.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by [M]. Chicago&London:The University of Chicago Press,1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind [M]. Chicago&London: The University of Chicago Press.1987.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson，M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind andIts Challenge to Western Thought [M].New York: Basic Books,1999.
Lakoff, G.&Turner, M. More than cool reason: A field guide topoetic metaphor [M]. Chicago&London: The University of Chicago Press,1989.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of cognitive grammar: TheoreticalPrerequisites [M]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1987.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II [M].Stanford，California：Stanford University Press,1991.
Langacker，R.W. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive linguistics,1993(4-1):1-38.
Langacker, R. W. Grammar and conceptualization [M]. Berlin&New York:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
Langacker，R.W. Metonymy in Grammar[J].外国语2004（6）：2-24.
Langacker，R.W. Cognitive grammar: an introduction[M].Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2008.
Langacker，R.W. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2009.
Lapata, M.&A. Lascarides. A probabilistic account of logical metonymy[J]. Computational Linguistics,1999（29-2）:261-315.
Lascarides, A.&Copestake, A. Pragmatics and word meaning [J]. Journalof linguistics,1998(34):387-414.
Lin T.H.Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure[D].Universtity of California, Irvine,2001.
Lin T.H.&Liu C.Y.Coercion, Event structure and syntax [J].NanzanLinguistics,2005(2):9-31.
Liu, Meichun. Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion andconstructional inferences of mandarin verb gain [J].Journal of Chineselinguistics,2005(2).
Malinowski, B. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. InSupplement1to Ogden, C. K.&Richards, I. A. The Meaning of Meaning[M]. London: Kegan Paul,1923.
Malinowski, B. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. Vol.2[M]. London: Allen&Unwin,1935.
Mandler, J.M.How to build a babyII: Conceptual Primitives [J].Psychological Review,1992-99:587-604.
Mandler, J. M. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought [M].New York: Oxford University Press,2004.
May, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2001.
Matthiessen，C.&M.A.K.Halliday.2009.Systemic functional grammar：afirst step into the theory[M].高等教育出版社.
McElree, B., Mattew, J. T., Martin, J. P., Seely, E. R.&Jackendoff, R.Reading time evidence for enriched composition [J]. Cognition,2001(1):17-25.
McElree, B., Pylkkanen, L.，Pichering, M. J.&Traxler M. J. A time courseanalysis of enriched composition [J].Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2006,13(1).53-59.
Nunberg, G. The pragmatics of reference [M].Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club: Bloomington, Indiana,1978.
Nunberg, G. Transfers of meaning [J]. Journal of Semantics,1995(12):109–132.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. The potentiality for actuality metonymyin English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther&G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought [C].Amsterdam&Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.1999:333-357.
Panther, K.-U. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction[A]. In Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics andInterdisciplinary Interaction. Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá ezand M. Sandra Pe a (eds.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2005:353-386.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2003.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. The Role of Conceptual Metonymy in MeaningConstruction [J]. De Metaphorik,2004.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy and the way we speak [A]. InBenczes, R.&Csábi, S.(eds.) The Metaphors of Sixty. Papers Presentedon the Occasion of the60th Birthday of Zoltán K vecses [C]. Budapest:E tv s Loránd University,2006:183-195.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy [A]. In The oxford handbook ofcognitive linguistics. Edited by Geeraerts, D.&Cuyckens, H. Oxforduniversity press,2007:236-263.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L.&Barcelona, A. Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,2009.
Partee, B.H., ter Meulen, A.,&Wall, R. E. Mathematical Methods inLinguistics [M]. Boston: Kluwer Academic,1993.
Pesetsky, D. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades [M]. Cambridge, MA:Te MIT Press，1996.
Pickering, M.J., McElree, B.&Traxler, M. The difficulty of coercion:A responseto de Almeida [J]. Brain&Language,2005(93):1-9.
Popper，K.P.科学知识进化论[M].三联书店，1987.
Preece, S. A spreading activation network model for information retrieval[D]. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,1981.
Pustejovsky, J. The syntax of event structure [J].Cognilion,1991(41):47—81.
Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press,1995.
Pustejovsky, J.&Bouillon, P. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy[J]. Journal of semantics1995(12-2):133-162.
Pylkk nen, L.&McElree, B. The syntax-semantic interface: On-linecomposition of sentence meaning [A]. In M. Traxler&M.A. Gernsbacher(eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd Ed). NY: Elsevier,2006:537-577.
Pylkk nen, L.&McElree, B. An MEG Study of Silent Meaning [J]. Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience,2007(19):1905-1921.
Radden, G.&Kovecese, Z. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A].In Pather, K.-U.&Radden, G.(eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought.John BenjaminsB.V.,1999.
Radden, G.&Panther, Klaus-Uwe. Studies in motivation [M].Berlin and NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.2004.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. The role of mappings and domains in understandingMetonymy [A]. In Barcelona, A.(ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at theCrossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.109-132.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.&P. Hernández, L. Metonymy and the grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language&Communication,2001（4）:321-357.
Saussure, de, F.1959. Course in General Linguistics [M]. New York: ThePhilosophical Library，1959.
Searle, J.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of SpeechActs[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seto,K. Distinguish metonymy from synecdoche[A]. Panther,K.-U.&Radden,G.(eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:Benjamins,1999.
Shutova, E. Sense-based interpretation of logical metonymy using astatistical method [A] In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP StudentResearch Workshop. Suntec, Singapore，2009.
Siewierska, A. Functional and cognitive grammars [J].外语教学与研究，2011（5）：643-664.
Sperber, D.&Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and cognition [M].外研社.2001.
Svorou, S. The Grammar of Space[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,1994.
Sweep，J. A frame-semantic approach to logical metonymy [J]. Constructionsand Frames,2010(1):1-32.
Taylor, J. R.1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon.
Taylor, J. R. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford University Press，2002.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form.In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol.3. Cambridge: CUP,1985:36-149.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitivesemantics,2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2000:21-146.
Ter Meulen, A. English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers [A].In A. L. Halpern (Ed.) The proceedings of the ninth West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Studyof Language and Information.1991:347-360.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar [M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of LanguageAcquisition [M]. Harvard University Press,2003.
Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J.&McElree, B. Coercion in sentenceprocessing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading [J].Journal of Memory and Language,2002(47):530-547.
Traxler, M. J., McElree, B.Williams, Rihana S., Pickering Martin J.Context effects in coercion: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journalof Memory and language,2005(53):1-25.
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to cognitive linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Utiyama, M.，Murata, M.,&Isahara,H.A statistical approach to theprocessing of metonymy[A].In Proceedings of the18th InternationalConference on Computaitonal Linguistics. Saarbrucken, Germany,2000:885-891.
Vendler, Z. Adjectives and Nominalization [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1968.
Verspoor, M.1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics [D].University of Edinburgh.
Weinreich, U. Webster’s Third: A Critique of its Semantics[J].International Journal of American Linguistics.1964(30):405-409.
Wittgenstein, L.逻辑哲学论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
Zarcone A.&Padó. S. Generalized Event Knowledge in Logical MetonymyResolution [M].2011.
陈治安、文旭.导读[A].In An Introduction to cognitive linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
代礼胜,逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J],外语教学,2009（6）:17-23.
冯志伟、刘俊莉.现代语言学名著导读[M].北京大学出版社,2008.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育，1994.
姜孟.句法自治争鸣与证据[J].外国语文，2009（3）.
李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释[D].复旦大学，2004.
李勇忠.论语法转喻对语言结构的影响[J].外语教学与研究，2005（4）：276-282，321.
李勇忠.语言结构的转喻认知理据[J].外国语，2005（6）：40-46.
刘琼怡.动态化的生成词汇[D].台北：“国立清华大学”语言学研究所,2004.
刘正光. Fauconnier的概念合成理论：阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10)：8-12.
陆俭明.隐喻、转喻散议[J].外国语，2009（1）：44-50.
沈家煊.转喻和转指[J].当代语言学1999（1）：3-15.
沈家煊.认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A].沈阳、冯胜利（编）.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].商务印书馆，2008：305-320.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2008.
宋作艳.现代汉语中的事件强迫现象研究[D].北京大学,2009.
宋作燕.轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫[J].中国语文，2011(3)：205-217,287.
宋作燕.逻辑转喻的半能产性与多种解释[J].语言教学与研究，2011(3)：43-50.
姜占好、陶源.逻辑转喻说略[J].外语研究，2010(5)：25-28.
王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2007.
文旭.语义模糊的认知分析[J].福建外语1999(2)：14-18.
吴淑琼，文旭.逻辑转喻的动态意义建构模式[J].外语与外语教学,2010(3):7-11.
吴淑琼.基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究[D].西南大学,2011.
吴淑琼.语法转喻的含义、特征和运作模式[J].外国语文，2011（6）：75-80.
吴淑琼.国外语法转喻研究述评[J].外语研究，2012（1）：45-53.
杨成虎.语法转喻的认知研究[D].北京师范大学，2008.
袁毓林.谓词隐含及其句法结果—“的”字结构的称代规则和“的”的语法、语义功能[J].中国语文，1995（4）：3-17.
袁毓林.名词代表动词短语和代词所指的波动[J].中国语文，2002(2)：5-16,96.
袁毓林.汉语句子的文意不足和结构省略[J].汉语学习，2002(3):1-5.
张辉，承华.试论汉语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究，2002（6）：15-19.
张辉，李佐文.从“red pencils”和“fake guns”谈起形名组合的认知语义研究[J].外语研究,2001(2)：36-40.
张秀松.从生成词库论看汉语词的逻辑多义性[J].北方论丛，2008(3):52-55.
张秀松、张爱玲.生成词库论简介[J].当代语言学，2009(3):267-271.
张亚非.认知与自然语言处理[J].外语研究，1994（3）：11-17.
张云秋，周建设，语法结构的经济原则——从汉语受事标记的过度使用谈起[J]，外语研究，2004(6):9-13,80.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
赵彦春.语义合成原则的有效性—对Taylor（2002）证伪的证伪[J].外国语，2008（3）：20-30.
Asher, N. Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge University Press,2010.
Baggio, G., Lambalgen, M. van,&Hagoort, P. The processing consequencesof compositionality [A]. In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality.New York：Oxford University Press,2012.
Barcelona, A. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [C].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Barcelona, A. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a fewmodest proposals [A]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Driven&K.-U.Panther (eds.).Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of GunterRadden [C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.2003:223-255.
Barcelona, A. Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operationof metonymy in grammar and discourse [A]. In Johannesson, N-L., Minugh,D.&Alm-Arvius, C.(eds.) Selected Papers from the2008StockholmMetaphor Festival (provisional title). Stockholm: StockholmUniversity.2011.
Barcelona，A.&Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. Defining Metonymy in CognitiveLinguistics: Towards a Consensus View.2011.
Berry, M., Butler, C. Fawcett, R., et al. Meaning and form: systemicfunctional interpretations (meaning and choice in language: Studiesfor Michael Halliday)(ed.) Ablex Publishing Corporation.1996.
Beaugrande, Bobert De.&Dressler, W. Introduction to text linguistics[M]. London: Longmans,1981.
Bloomfield，L.语言论[M].袁家骅、赵世开、甘世福译.北京：商务印书馆，1987.
Briscoe T.， Copestake, A.&Boguraev, B. Enjoy the paper: Lexicalsemantics via lexicology [A]. In: Proc.13th International Conferenceon Computational Linguistics (COLING-90), Helsinki,1990:42-47.
Brown, G.&Yule, G. Discourse Analysis[M].Cambridge University Press,1983.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structure [M].The Hague/Paris: Mouton,1957.
Chomsky, N. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1964.
Chomsky,N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Foris: Dordrecht,1981.
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program [M]. MIT Press: Cambridge,1995.
Copestake, A.&Briscoe, E. J. Semi-productive polysemy and senseextension [J]. Journal of Semantics,1995,12(1):15-67.
Copestake, A. The semi-generative lexicon: Limits on lexical productivity.In Proceedings of the first international workshop on generativeapproaches to the lexicon[C].Geneva,2001.
Collins, A. M.&Loftus, E. F. A spreading activation theory of semanticprocessing [J]. Psychological Review,1975(82):407-428.
Cook, G. Discourse [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
Croft, W. Typology and universals, second edition.(Cambridge Textbooksin Linguistics.)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Croft, W. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors andmetonymies. Cognitive Linguistics1993(4):335-370.
Croft，W.&Curse，D. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.2004.
Curse, D. Lexical Semantics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.
Evans, V.&Green, M. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M].Edinburg: Edinburg University Press,2006.
Feyaerts, K. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction betweenmetaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In: A. Barcelona (ed.),Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: de Gruyter,2000:59-78.
Fillmore, C. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [M].Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety,1975:123-131.
Fillmore, J. Frame Semantics [J]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul,Hanshin Publishing Co.,1982:111-137.
Firth,J.R. Personality and language in society[J].SociologicalReview,1950(42):37-52.(reprinted in J.R. Firth1957)
Firth, J.R. A synopsis of linguistic theory1930-1955[A]. In Studies inLinguistic Analysis, pp. Oxford: Philological Society,1957:1-32.
Fodor, J. A.&Lepore, E. The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections onJames Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry,1998(2),269–288.
Frisson, E.&McIlee,B. Complement coercion is not modulated bycompetition: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,2008(1):1一11.
Garfinkel,H. Studies in Ethnomethodology[M].Cambrdge: Polity,1967.
Geeraerts, D. Cognitive grammar and the history of lexicalsemantics[A].In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn(ed.).Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:647-678.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S.&Bakema, P.The Structure of LexicalVariation, Meaning, Naming,and Context[M].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1994.
Gibbs，R.W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, andUnderstanding [M]. Cambridge University Press,1994.
Givon, T. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1990(2).
Godard, J.&Jayez，D. Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena[J]. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter ofthe ACL. Utrecht1993:168–177.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Interpretation of the Functional Relationship betweenLanguage and Social Structure [A](manuscript1976). Published as EineInterpretation der funktionalen Beziehung zwischen Sprache undSozialstruktur'. Uta Quasthoff (ed.) Sprachstruktur-Sozialstruktur:zur linguistischen Theorienbildung. Konigstein/Ts.: Scriptor.1978.pp.3-42.)
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretationof Language and Meaning [M]. London&Baltimore: Edward Arnold&University Park Press，1978.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nded.)[M].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R.Language, Context and Text: a social semioticperspective [M]. Oxford,1989.
Halliday，M.A.K.，Matthiessen，C. Construing Experience Through Meaning[M].北京：世界图书出版社，2008.
Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M. Appelt, D.&Martin, P. Interpretation asabduction [J]. Artificial Intelligence,1993(63):69-142.
Huitt, W. Motivation to Learn: an overview [A]. Educational PsychologyInteractive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University,2001.
Jackendoff, Ray. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,1997.
Johnson, M. The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination,and reason [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
Katz，J.&Fodor，J. The structure of a semantic theory [J]. Language，1963（2）：170-210.
Kleiber, G. Polysemy, transfers of meaning and integrated metonymy [A].In Rakova, M., Peth, G.&Rákosi, C.(Eds.) The Cognitive Basis ofPolysemy. Peter Lang.2007:157-186.
Koch, P. Frame and contiguity. On the cognitive bases of metonymy andcertain types of word formation [A]. Panther,K.-U.&Radden, G.(eds.)Metonymy in Language and Thought[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:Benjamins,1999.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by [M]. Chicago&London:The University of Chicago Press,1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind [M]. Chicago&London: The University of Chicago Press.1987.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson，M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind andIts Challenge to Western Thought [M].New York: Basic Books,1999.
Lakoff, G.&Turner, M. More than cool reason: A field guide topoetic metaphor [M]. Chicago&London: The University of Chicago Press,1989.
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of cognitive grammar: TheoreticalPrerequisites [M]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1987.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II [M].Stanford，California：Stanford University Press,1991.
Langacker，R.W. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive linguistics,1993(4-1):1-38.
Langacker, R. W. Grammar and conceptualization [M]. Berlin&New York:Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
Langacker，R.W. Metonymy in Grammar[J].外国语2004（6）：2-24.
Langacker，R.W. Cognitive grammar: an introduction[M].Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2008.
Langacker，R.W. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2009.
Lapata, M.&A. Lascarides. A probabilistic account of logical metonymy[J]. Computational Linguistics,1999（29-2）:261-315.
Lascarides, A.&Copestake, A. Pragmatics and word meaning [J]. Journalof linguistics,1998(34):387-414.
Lin T.H.Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure[D].Universtity of California, Irvine,2001.
Lin T.H.&Liu C.Y.Coercion, Event structure and syntax [J].NanzanLinguistics,2005(2):9-31.
Liu, Meichun. Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion andconstructional inferences of mandarin verb gain [J].Journal of Chineselinguistics,2005(2).
Malinowski, B. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. InSupplement1to Ogden, C. K.&Richards, I. A. The Meaning of Meaning[M]. London: Kegan Paul,1923.
Malinowski, B. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. Vol.2[M]. London: Allen&Unwin,1935.
Mandler, J.M.How to build a babyII: Conceptual Primitives [J].Psychological Review,1992-99:587-604.
Mandler, J. M. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought [M].New York: Oxford University Press,2004.
May, J. L. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2001.
Matthiessen，C.&M.A.K.Halliday.2009.Systemic functional grammar：afirst step into the theory[M].高等教育出版社.
McElree, B., Mattew, J. T., Martin, J. P., Seely, E. R.&Jackendoff, R.Reading time evidence for enriched composition [J]. Cognition,2001(1):17-25.
McElree, B., Pylkkanen, L.，Pichering, M. J.&Traxler M. J. A time courseanalysis of enriched composition [J].Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2006,13(1).53-59.
Nunberg, G. The pragmatics of reference [M].Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club: Bloomington, Indiana,1978.
Nunberg, G. Transfers of meaning [J]. Journal of Semantics,1995(12):109–132.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. The potentiality for actuality metonymyin English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther&G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought [C].Amsterdam&Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.1999:333-357.
Panther, K.-U. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction[A]. In Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics andInterdisciplinary Interaction. Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá ezand M. Sandra Pe a (eds.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2005:353-386.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2003.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. The Role of Conceptual Metonymy in MeaningConstruction [J]. De Metaphorik,2004.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy and the way we speak [A]. InBenczes, R.&Csábi, S.(eds.) The Metaphors of Sixty. Papers Presentedon the Occasion of the60th Birthday of Zoltán K vecses [C]. Budapest:E tv s Loránd University,2006:183-195.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L. Metonymy [A]. In The oxford handbook ofcognitive linguistics. Edited by Geeraerts, D.&Cuyckens, H. Oxforduniversity press,2007:236-263.
Panther, K.-U.&Thornburg, L.&Barcelona, A. Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,2009.
Partee, B.H., ter Meulen, A.,&Wall, R. E. Mathematical Methods inLinguistics [M]. Boston: Kluwer Academic,1993.
Pesetsky, D. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades [M]. Cambridge, MA:Te MIT Press，1996.
Pickering, M.J., McElree, B.&Traxler, M. The difficulty of coercion:A responseto de Almeida [J]. Brain&Language,2005(93):1-9.
Popper，K.P.科学知识进化论[M].三联书店，1987.
Preece, S. A spreading activation network model for information retrieval[D]. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,1981.
Pustejovsky, J. The syntax of event structure [J].Cognilion,1991(41):47—81.
Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press,1995.
Pustejovsky, J.&Bouillon, P. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy[J]. Journal of semantics1995(12-2):133-162.
Pylkk nen, L.&McElree, B. The syntax-semantic interface: On-linecomposition of sentence meaning [A]. In M. Traxler&M.A. Gernsbacher(eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd Ed). NY: Elsevier,2006:537-577.
Pylkk nen, L.&McElree, B. An MEG Study of Silent Meaning [J]. Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience,2007(19):1905-1921.
Radden, G.&Kovecese, Z. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A].In Pather, K.-U.&Radden, G.(eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought.John BenjaminsB.V.,1999.
Radden, G.&Panther, Klaus-Uwe. Studies in motivation [M].Berlin and NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.2004.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. The role of mappings and domains in understandingMetonymy [A]. In Barcelona, A.(ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at theCrossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.109-132.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.&P. Hernández, L. Metonymy and the grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language&Communication,2001（4）:321-357.
Saussure, de, F.1959. Course in General Linguistics [M]. New York: ThePhilosophical Library，1959.
Searle, J.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of SpeechActs[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seto,K. Distinguish metonymy from synecdoche[A]. Panther,K.-U.&Radden,G.(eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:Benjamins,1999.
Shutova, E. Sense-based interpretation of logical metonymy using astatistical method [A] In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP StudentResearch Workshop. Suntec, Singapore，2009.
Siewierska, A. Functional and cognitive grammars [J].外语教学与研究，2011（5）：643-664.
Sperber, D.&Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and cognition [M].外研社.2001.
Svorou, S. The Grammar of Space[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,1994.
Sweep，J. A frame-semantic approach to logical metonymy [J]. Constructionsand Frames,2010(1):1-32.
Taylor, J. R.1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in LinguisticTheory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon.
Taylor, J. R. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford University Press，2002.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form.In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol.3. Cambridge: CUP,1985:36-149.
Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitivesemantics,2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2000:21-146.
Ter Meulen, A. English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers [A].In A. L. Halpern (Ed.) The proceedings of the ninth West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Studyof Language and Information.1991:347-360.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar [M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2000.
Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of LanguageAcquisition [M]. Harvard University Press,2003.
Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J.&McElree, B. Coercion in sentenceprocessing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading [J].Journal of Memory and Language,2002(47):530-547.
Traxler, M. J., McElree, B.Williams, Rihana S., Pickering Martin J.Context effects in coercion: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journalof Memory and language,2005(53):1-25.
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to cognitive linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Utiyama, M.，Murata, M.,&Isahara,H.A statistical approach to theprocessing of metonymy[A].In Proceedings of the18th InternationalConference on Computaitonal Linguistics. Saarbrucken, Germany,2000:885-891.
Vendler, Z. Adjectives and Nominalization [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1968.
Verspoor, M.1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics [D].University of Edinburgh.
Weinreich, U. Webster’s Third: A Critique of its Semantics[J].International Journal of American Linguistics.1964(30):405-409.
Wittgenstein, L.逻辑哲学论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
Zarcone A.&Padó. S. Generalized Event Knowledge in Logical MetonymyResolution [M].2011.
陈治安、文旭.导读[A].In An Introduction to cognitive linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
代礼胜,逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J],外语教学,2009（6）:17-23.
冯志伟、刘俊莉.现代语言学名著导读[M].北京大学出版社,2008.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海：上海外语教育，1994.
姜孟.句法自治争鸣与证据[J].外国语文，2009（3）.
李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释[D].复旦大学，2004.
李勇忠.论语法转喻对语言结构的影响[J].外语教学与研究，2005（4）：276-282，321.
李勇忠.语言结构的转喻认知理据[J].外国语，2005（6）：40-46.
刘琼怡.动态化的生成词汇[D].台北：“国立清华大学”语言学研究所,2004.
刘正光. Fauconnier的概念合成理论：阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10)：8-12.
陆俭明.隐喻、转喻散议[J].外国语，2009（1）：44-50.
沈家煊.转喻和转指[J].当代语言学1999（1）：3-15.
沈家煊.认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A].沈阳、冯胜利（编）.当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C].商务印书馆，2008：305-320.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2008.
宋作艳.现代汉语中的事件强迫现象研究[D].北京大学,2009.
宋作燕.轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫[J].中国语文，2011(3)：205-217,287.
宋作燕.逻辑转喻的半能产性与多种解释[J].语言教学与研究，2011(3)：43-50.
姜占好、陶源.逻辑转喻说略[J].外语研究，2010(5)：25-28.
王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2007.
文旭.语义模糊的认知分析[J].福建外语1999(2)：14-18.
吴淑琼，文旭.逻辑转喻的动态意义建构模式[J].外语与外语教学,2010(3):7-11.
吴淑琼.基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究[D].西南大学,2011.
吴淑琼.语法转喻的含义、特征和运作模式[J].外国语文，2011（6）：75-80.
吴淑琼.国外语法转喻研究述评[J].外语研究，2012（1）：45-53.
杨成虎.语法转喻的认知研究[D].北京师范大学，2008.
袁毓林.谓词隐含及其句法结果—“的”字结构的称代规则和“的”的语法、语义功能[J].中国语文，1995（4）：3-17.
袁毓林.名词代表动词短语和代词所指的波动[J].中国语文，2002(2)：5-16,96.
袁毓林.汉语句子的文意不足和结构省略[J].汉语学习，2002(3):1-5.
张辉，承华.试论汉语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究，2002（6）：15-19.
张辉，李佐文.从“red pencils”和“fake guns”谈起形名组合的认知语义研究[J].外语研究,2001(2)：36-40.
张秀松.从生成词库论看汉语词的逻辑多义性[J].北方论丛，2008(3):52-55.
张秀松、张爱玲.生成词库论简介[J].当代语言学，2009(3):267-271.
张亚非.认知与自然语言处理[J].外语研究，1994（3）：11-17.
张云秋，周建设，语法结构的经济原则——从汉语受事标记的过度使用谈起[J]，外语研究，2004(6):9-13,80.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
赵彦春.语义合成原则的有效性—对Taylor（2002）证伪的证伪[J].外国语，2008（3）：20-30.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |