英汉肤觉形容词的认知语义研究
|
摘要
英汉形容词是英汉语言中的主要词类,但是仍有部分语言学者(Zhao 1968, Lti 1979, Li & Thompson 1981)不主张把汉语形容词看作单独的一类词,对其研究存在偏颇。我们认为,英汉形容词作为主要词类,应该成为语言学研究的重点之一,英汉肤觉形容词也自然包括在其中。
通过回顾前人的研究,包括英汉形容词研究、涉及皮肤感觉以及其他人类经验的语言学研究、关于皮肤感觉的非语言学研究,我们认为前人的研究在以下几个方面存在明显的不足：1.有关英汉形容词,特别是英汉形容词的语义研究相对介词和动词而言不多见。2。目前主要有四项语义研究在一定程度上涉及肤觉形容词,包括Balmas(2000)的英语触觉隐喻研究、Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rakhilina (2006)有关俄语和瑞典语温度形容词的语义研究、Shindo (2009)针对英语感官形容词的语义引申研究,以及Rakova (2003)关于英语形容词特别是通感形容词的多义问题研究,但从跨语言的角度围绕英汉肤觉形容词展开的认知语义研究至今无人涉及。3.以往关于人类经验的认知语义研究主要涉及空间域(Brugman 1981,1983; Talmy 1983)、情感域(King 1989, Kovecses 1990)、移动域(Matsumoto 1996)、嗅觉域(Ibarretxe-Antunano 1999)、维度域(Vogel 2004)。况且,这些研究大多关注介词和动词等词类,而不是形容词类。
肤觉形容词是形容词的一类,它们是描述皮肤感觉、反映肤觉经验的形容词。皮肤感觉指皮肤因机械、化学或其它类型的刺激而产生的感觉,主要包括触觉、温度觉和痛觉。肤觉经验相应指源自人类皮肤感觉的经验。
我们运用认知语言学的原型范畴理论和理想认知模式理论,对英汉肤觉形容词的共时语义进行分析研究,同时从共时和历时的角度对其语义进行比较研究,揭示英汉肤觉形容词的相关语义和语法规律。
原型范畴理论包含以下四个主要观点：1.范畴不由一组充分必要条件或特征决定。2.范畴成员不是离散、彼此孤立的,而是一个连续体,基于家族相似性,彼此相互联系。3.范畴边界通常是模糊的而不是明确的。4.范畴成员地位不平等,有典型成员和非典型成员之分。理想认知模式理论是原型理论在认知语言学范围内的进一步完善,源自Fillmore的框架语义学、Lakoff & Johnson的隐喻和转喻理论、Langacker的认知语法,以及Fauconnier的心理空间理论(Lakoff 1987:68)。根据Lakoff (1987:113-114,154)的论述,我们在本研究将理想认知模式视为组成概念系统的四类认知结构,主要包括：意象图式模式、命题模式、隐喻模式、转喻模式。
在研究中,我们主要运用了定性研究方法。从大量的文献资料中,我们获取了丰富的研究语料,采用定性研究法用于揭示英汉肤觉形容词的相关语义和语法规律。如：根据《牛津英语词典》、《新编汉语形容词词典》等英汉词典选取英汉肤觉形容词,收集、归纳基本词汇概念,并揭示相关认知模式；从共时角度分别对所选取的英汉肤觉形容词进行语义考察；结合共时和历时角度对相关英汉肤觉形容词进行语义比较研究。同时,我们基于当代美国英语语料库、朱氏汉语语料库、北京大学现代汉语语料库和在线汉语语料库,搜取相关英汉肤觉形容词与名词的实际组合,并提出相应的认知模式。
我们的研究主体由三个主要部分构成：英汉肤觉形容词共时语义分析；英汉肤觉形容词共时语义比较研究；英汉肤觉形容词历时语义比较研究。
共时语义研究主要围绕八个典型的英汉肤觉形容词展开,其中包括四个温度形容词——hot、cold、热、冷,和四个触觉形容词——hard、soft、硬、软。我们在分析这些肤觉形容词时主要涉及三个方面：以词典为基础的肤觉形容词的词汇概念、基于语料库的性质肤觉形容词与名词的组合,以及基于词典和语料库的与肤觉形容词相关的基本认知模式。我们通过这三个方面的分析研究分别总结出上述八个肤觉形容词的主要词汇概念、1173条性质肤觉形容词与名词的实际组合和与这八个肤觉形容词相关的意象图式模式、命题模式,以及68组主要的隐喻模式和转喻模式。
共时语义比较研究建立在上述共时语义研究的基础上,仍然从三个方面,即词汇概念、性质肤觉形容词与名词的组合和与肤觉形容词相关联的基本认知模式,对前文提及的八个典型的肤觉形容词进行比较,并且揭示出相关英汉肤觉及其它相关经验概念化的异同与成因。
历时语义比较研究主要是对共时语义比较研究的补充,针对两类肤觉形容词进行比较分析。这两类肤觉形容词分别反映了两个主要的、相互存在一定矛盾的语义变化路径。鉴于代表性和史料的可靠性,我们着重比较了keen、“锐”的历时语义发展,同时还探讨了前人对其矛盾路径有失偏颇的地方,并给出了引发该矛盾的、相对合理的解释。
通过对英汉肤觉形容词的认知语义学探究,我们最终归纳出以下四点主要发现：
1.体验性和典型性是英汉肤觉形容词的两个主要特征。
英汉肤觉形容词的体验性主要体现在以下三个方面：(1)肤觉形容词及其相关概念并不仅仅是对世界的客观反映,而且是直接根源于人和世界相互作用形成的肤觉经验。(2)由肤觉形容词引申而来的形容词及其相关概念间接根植于肤觉经验。对英汉肤觉形容词的共时和历时语义引申考察均证明,英汉肤觉形容词的语义延伸主要沿具体到抽象的路径发展。(3)英汉肤觉形容词的共时和历时语义变化均产生于相应的社会、文化背景。不同的社会、文化背景造成识解范围、内容和方式的根本差异,以及相应的概念结构和语法差异。
英汉肤觉形容词的语义和语法两方面均呈现典型性。(1)肤觉形容词的语义范畴大都构成原型范畴。肤觉形容词涉及肤觉经验的语义内容比视觉、听觉等其他感官、人类情感、性格等概念内容以及相关经验更典型,因为肤觉经验比其他经验更基本、更普遍。当然,随着时间与社会的变化,其他经验的重要性和普遍性也可能发生变化,从而在很大程度上导致典型性的动态性。但是,我们的研究和Shindo(2009)的研究均表明,事实上由于肤觉经验的重要性和普遍性,涉及肤觉经验的语义内容往往仍将维持其典型性。(2)由于主要受到语义典型性的影响,英汉肤觉形容词的相关语法也存在典型性问题。英语肤觉形容词属于非典型的英语形容词,处于形容词范畴的边缘,临界于英语动词范畴。汉语肤觉形容词则属于典型的汉语形容词,临界于汉语动词范畴。
2.关注识解目标对于研究者具有重要意义,而且对于不同的识解目标应当予以基本区分。
我们在研究中提出基本区分识解目标,即以人类为中心的识解和非人类为中心的识解。如果说体验性和典型性主要解答了“如何识解目标”这一问题,那么对以人类为中心的和非人类为中心的识解进行基本区分则回答了“什么是识解目标”这一问题。以人类为中心的识解指人们主要围绕人类进行的识解,包括人类的情感、评价、行为等。以非人类为中心的识解指人们主要针对非人类的事物进行的识解,比如物体或事件的状态或性质等。根据这一区分,我们将命题、隐喻、转喻模式主要分为两类——以人类为中心的和以非人类为中心的模式。另外,在区分两种识解的同时,我们发现这两种识解彼此相互联系,而不是截然分开的,因为实际上人类和非人类的事物不可避免地相互影响。
这种基本区分清楚地证实了体验性的相互作用特征。一方面,基本区分有助于研究者更加明确地展示与同一识解目标相关联的认知结构的内部联系。另一方面,基本区分有利于清晰地显示不同识解目标的彼此联系。更重要的是,与此同时,另一识解原则也相应得以揭示。
3.人们确定识解目标的原则是以人类为中心。基于该原则,我们发现英汉肤觉形容词的语义具有主观化趋势。
正是由于基本区分了识解目标,我们的研究揭示出另一重要识解原则——人类中心性或以人类为中心的原则,即人们的识解实际上是以人类为中心的。
在挖掘与英汉肤觉形容词相关的理想认知模式的过程中,我们发现：没有一个以人为中心的隐喻与以非人类为中心的隐喻相关联。与此相反,以非人类为中心的隐喻与以人类为中心的识解相关联。这表明非人类的事物往往只有与人类相联系才有意义。
我们的研究主要基于历时考察和以人类为中心的原则,发现英汉肤觉形容词的语义内容趋向主观化。典型的英语肤觉形容词与典型的汉语肤觉形容词相比,前者已被更广泛地应用于描述与人类相关的抽象经验。基于体验性、典型性和人类中心性的原则,我们认为随着社会的发展,典型的汉语肤觉形容词也将出现更多的反映人类抽象经验的词汇概念。
4.英汉肤觉形容词呈现出动词化趋势。
我们的研究具体指明了英汉肤觉形容词动词化趋势的五个方面：①大部分英语肤觉形容词都将呈现动词化趋势,但都不能彻底转化为动词；②只有极为典型的英语肤觉形容词才能真正转化为动词；③只有极不典型的英语肤觉形容词才不会呈现动词化趋势；④大部分汉语肤觉形容词都将彻底转化为动词；⑤大部分非典型的汉语肤觉形容词都不能真正转化为动词。
Adjectives both in English and Chinese are a major lexical class in the two languages. However, there are still some linguists (Zhao 1968, Lu 1979, Li & Thompson 1981) who, from biased perspectives, do not agree to treat adjectives in Chinese as an independent lexical class. We maintain that, adjectives in English and Chinese, as a principal type of words, are supposed to be taken as a research focus in linguistics and that skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese should naturally be given much attention as well.
With a survey of earlier studies, including research of adjectives in English and Chinese, linguistic studies more or less in relation to skin sensations and other human experiences, as well as non-linguistic analyses of skin sensations, we find those studies are manifestly inadequate in the following respects:1. Research of adjectives, especially semantics of adjectives in English and Chinese, is less carried out in linguistics than that of prepositions and verbs.2. At present, chiefly four semantic studies are to some extent related to skin-sense adjectives, including Balmas's investigation of tactile metaphors in English (2000), Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rakhilina's semantic study of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish (2006), Shindo's study focused on semantic extensions of sensory adjectives (2009), and Rakova's research of polysemy regarding adjectives, in particular, synaesthetic adjectives (2003). Notwithstanding, cognitive semantics of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from a cross-linguistic perspective has never been studied.3. Previous cognitive semantic research in respect of human experiences is mainly directed towards areas of space (Brugman 1981, 1983; Talmy 1983), emotions (King 1989, Kovecses 1990), motions (Matsumoto 1996), smell (Ibarretxe-Antunano 1999), and dimension (Vogel 2004). Moreover, most of those studies are concerned with lexical classes such as prepositions and verbs instead of adjectives.
The skin-sense adjective construed in this study is one type of the adjective, describing skin sensations and reflecting relevant skin-sense experiences. Skin sensations are those sensations stemming from the skin provoked by mechanical, chemical or other types of stimuli, primarily including the sense of temperature, touch, and pain. Accordingly, the skin-sense experience is the experience arising from human skin sensations.
We apply the prototype theory of categorization and the theory of idealized cognitive models in cognitive linguistics to synchronic semantic analyses and investigation of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, and, meanwhile, to semantic comparative research of such adjectives from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, revealing pertinent semantic and grammatical regularities of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
The prototype theory of categorization mainly entails the following four main points:1. Category is not defined by a set of sufficient and necessary conditions or features.2. Category members are not discrete and independent from each other. Instead, the members form a continuum and are interrelated by family resemblances.3. The boundaries of a category tend to be fuzzy rather than clear.4. Members of a category do not have equal status, acting as either prototypical or non-prototypical members of the category. The theory of idealized cognitive models is a further improvement on the prototype theory in cognitive linguistics. Such a theory, as stated by Lakoff (1987:68), is derived from Fillmore's frame semantics, Lakoff & Johnson's theory of metaphor and metonymy, Langacker's cognitive grammar, and Fauconnier's theory of mental spaces. In terms of Lakoff's arguments (1987:113-114,154), we treat idealized cognitive models in this study as four kinds of cognitive structures acting as parts of the conceptual system, principally including image schematic models, propositional models, metaphoric models, and metonymic models.
We for the most part make use of the qualitative method in the present study. From a large number of reference materials, we obtain abundant linguistic data for the research and adopt the qualitative method to reveal relevant semantic and grammatical regularities of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese. We, for example, select skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, collect and generalize basic lexical concepts, and disclose relevant cognitive models according to English and Chinese dictionaries such as Oxford English Dictionary and Newly Adapted Dictionary of Chinese Adjectives; examine semantics of the selected skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from a synchronic perspective; integrate both synchronic and diachronic perspectives to make semantic comparisons of pertinent skin-sense adjectives.in English and Chinese. Meanwhile, on the basis of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, Zhu's Corpus of Chinese, and the Online Chinese Corpus, we search out relevant practical combinations of skin-sense adjectives and nouns in English and Chinese, and bring forward corresponding cognitive models.
Our study is comprised of three major parts:synchronic semantic analyses of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, synchronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese, and diachronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese.
The synchronic semantic survey is chiefly directed towards eight prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese-four temperature adjectives, hot, cold, re执'hot', leng冷'cold', and four touch adjectives, hard, soft, ying硬'hard', and ruan软'soft'. In the analysis of semantics regarding each of these skin-sense adjectives, three major aspects are involved-lexical concepts of the skin-sense adjectives predominantly according to dictionaries, combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns based on corpora, and primary cognitive models tied to skin-sense adjectives built on both dictionaries and corpora. With the examination of the three aspects, lexical concepts of the eight skin-sense adjectives are generalized and 1,173 groups of actual combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns, together with pertinent image schemas, propositions,68 groups of metaphors and metonymies, are extracted and sorted out.
Synchronic semantic comparisons are grounded in the abovementioned synchronic semantics. The eight prototypical English and Chinese skin-sense adjectives are still compared from the three respects-lexical concepts, combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns, and relevant cognitive models. Corresponding construal similarities and differences between English and Chinese in regard to skin sensations and other relevant experiences, along with associated causes, are additionally exposed by such synchronic semantic comparisons.
Diachronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese, on the whole acting as a perspective supplementing the synchronic semantic examination, are centered on the comparison between two types of skin-sense adjectives. Such two classes of skin-sense adjectives respectively represent two primary and somewhat inconsistent semantic changing paths. In view of representativity and the reliability of historical resources, we particularly focus on comparing the semantic development of keen and rui锐'keen'. In addition, some biased explanations about the inconsistent semantic development are discussed and comparatively realistic accounts of the divergence are proposed.
At last, we draw the following four principal findings by means of the cognitive semantic investigation of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
1. Embodiment and prototypicality are two essential characteristics of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
Embodiment of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese is largely exhibited by the subsequent three points. (1) The emergence of skin-sense adjectives and concepts of these adjectives per se, rather than merely objective reflections of the world and having little to do with purely scientific parameters, are directly rooted in skin-sense experiences stemmed from mutual interactions between the human body and the world. (2) Adjectives extended from skin-sense adjectives and concepts linked with these extended adjectives are indirectly grounded in skin-sense experiences. The survey of semantic extensions of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives demonstrate that the semantic development path of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese chiefly shifts from concrete to abstract. (3) The synchronic semantic extension and diachronic semantic change of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese occur under pertinent social and cultural backgrounds. Different social and cultural experiences lead to essentially divergent construal scope, content, means, disparately conceptual structures, and grammatical discrepancies.
Prototypicality of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese is manifested by both semantic and grammatical respects. (1) Semantic categories of skin-sense adjectives by and large make up prototype categories. Compared with other conceptual content in reference to vision, audition and other senses, human emotions, and personality, etc, and relevant experiences, the semantic content of skin-sense adjectives concerning skin-sense experiences, as a rule, is more prototypical, since skin-sense experiences function more basically and spread more widely than other experiences. Undoubtedly, with the development of time and society, magnitude and frequency of occurrences with respect to other experiences may vary, which to a large degree gives rise to the dynamic prototypicality. Notwithstanding, as corroborated by our study and Shindo's research (2009), semantic content regarding skin-sense experiences tends to remain prototypical, which is in essence attributed to the fundamental roles and prevalence of skin-sense experiences. (2) Largely controlled by semantic prototypicality, grammatical aspects related to skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese are for the most part indications of prototypicality as well. Skin-sense adjectives in English are non-prototypical members of English adjectives, situated in the margin of the adjective category and approximating to the verb class in English. Skin-sense adjectives in Chinese are prototypical adjectives in Chinese, placed in the center of the Chinese adjective category and close to the category of Chinese verbs.
2. It is noteworthy for researchers to take into account the construal focus. Moreover, different construal focuses ought to be basically discriminated.
In process of the present research, we suggest basically differentiating between distinct construal focuses-human-centered construal and nonhuman-centered construal. If embodiment and prototypicality have provided chief solutions to the problem "how to construe the focus", then the basic discrimination between human-centered and nonhuman-centered construal mostly answers the question "what is the construal focus". Human-centered construal refers to the human construal that is largely focused on human beings, including human emotions, evaluations, and actions, etc. Nonhuman-centered construal is the human construal centered on nonhuman things, such as states and qualities of objects or events. In terms of the basic differentiation, we generally divide cognitive models of propositions, metaphors, and metonymies into two primary kinds-human-centered and nonhuman-centered cognitive models. Furthermore, while basically distinguished from each other, the two kinds of construal are in the meantime conceived of as interconnected with each other instead of being absolutely separated, since humankind and nonhuman things in effect inevitably affect each other.
Such a distinction definitely corroborates the interactional characteristic of embodiment. On the one hand, the differentiation helps researchers to more clearly reveal the internal relationship between cognitive structures tied to the same construal focus. On the other, with the basic distinction, the close relationship between different construal focuses is manifestly exhibited. More importantly, at the same time a further construal principle is accordingly disclosed.
3. The tenet of establishing the construal focus is anthropocentricity. Meanwhile, chiefly based on this principle, we discover that skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese tend to be subjectified.
It is to a great extent with the help of the basic distinction between human-centered and nonhuman-centered construal that we find out another significant construal tenet-anthropocentricity or the human-centered rule-which states that human construal is in essence centered on human beings.
While unveiling the idealized cognitive models, we discover that no human-centered metaphor is tied to nonhuman-centered metaphor. By contrast, nonhuman-centered metaphor is normally connected with pertinent human-centered metaphor, indicating that nonhuman things are merely meaningful when they are in association with human beings.
According to the diachronic semantic examination and the tenet of anthropocentricity, the semantic content of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese has a tendency to be subjectified. At present, prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English have been more extensively applied to delineation of abstract experiences connected with humankind than those in Chinese. It is expected that prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese are most probably to be tied to more abstract lexical concepts centered on human beings as the society develops.
4. Skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese are liable to be verbalized.
The general verbalization trend of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese can be predicted. Five specific aspects in regard to the verbalization trend are pointed out:(ⅰ) Most skin-sense adjectives in English have the tendency of verbalization but will not be completely verbalized; (ⅱ) Only the most prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English will be actually verbalized; (ⅲ) Only the most non-prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English will not have the tendency of verbalization; (ⅳ) The majority of prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese will be absolutely verbalized; (ⅴ) The majority of non-prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese will not be totally verbalized.
通过回顾前人的研究,包括英汉形容词研究、涉及皮肤感觉以及其他人类经验的语言学研究、关于皮肤感觉的非语言学研究,我们认为前人的研究在以下几个方面存在明显的不足：1.有关英汉形容词,特别是英汉形容词的语义研究相对介词和动词而言不多见。2。目前主要有四项语义研究在一定程度上涉及肤觉形容词,包括Balmas(2000)的英语触觉隐喻研究、Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rakhilina (2006)有关俄语和瑞典语温度形容词的语义研究、Shindo (2009)针对英语感官形容词的语义引申研究,以及Rakova (2003)关于英语形容词特别是通感形容词的多义问题研究,但从跨语言的角度围绕英汉肤觉形容词展开的认知语义研究至今无人涉及。3.以往关于人类经验的认知语义研究主要涉及空间域(Brugman 1981,1983; Talmy 1983)、情感域(King 1989, Kovecses 1990)、移动域(Matsumoto 1996)、嗅觉域(Ibarretxe-Antunano 1999)、维度域(Vogel 2004)。况且,这些研究大多关注介词和动词等词类,而不是形容词类。
肤觉形容词是形容词的一类,它们是描述皮肤感觉、反映肤觉经验的形容词。皮肤感觉指皮肤因机械、化学或其它类型的刺激而产生的感觉,主要包括触觉、温度觉和痛觉。肤觉经验相应指源自人类皮肤感觉的经验。
我们运用认知语言学的原型范畴理论和理想认知模式理论,对英汉肤觉形容词的共时语义进行分析研究,同时从共时和历时的角度对其语义进行比较研究,揭示英汉肤觉形容词的相关语义和语法规律。
原型范畴理论包含以下四个主要观点：1.范畴不由一组充分必要条件或特征决定。2.范畴成员不是离散、彼此孤立的,而是一个连续体,基于家族相似性,彼此相互联系。3.范畴边界通常是模糊的而不是明确的。4.范畴成员地位不平等,有典型成员和非典型成员之分。理想认知模式理论是原型理论在认知语言学范围内的进一步完善,源自Fillmore的框架语义学、Lakoff & Johnson的隐喻和转喻理论、Langacker的认知语法,以及Fauconnier的心理空间理论(Lakoff 1987:68)。根据Lakoff (1987:113-114,154)的论述,我们在本研究将理想认知模式视为组成概念系统的四类认知结构,主要包括：意象图式模式、命题模式、隐喻模式、转喻模式。
在研究中,我们主要运用了定性研究方法。从大量的文献资料中,我们获取了丰富的研究语料,采用定性研究法用于揭示英汉肤觉形容词的相关语义和语法规律。如：根据《牛津英语词典》、《新编汉语形容词词典》等英汉词典选取英汉肤觉形容词,收集、归纳基本词汇概念,并揭示相关认知模式；从共时角度分别对所选取的英汉肤觉形容词进行语义考察；结合共时和历时角度对相关英汉肤觉形容词进行语义比较研究。同时,我们基于当代美国英语语料库、朱氏汉语语料库、北京大学现代汉语语料库和在线汉语语料库,搜取相关英汉肤觉形容词与名词的实际组合,并提出相应的认知模式。
我们的研究主体由三个主要部分构成：英汉肤觉形容词共时语义分析；英汉肤觉形容词共时语义比较研究；英汉肤觉形容词历时语义比较研究。
共时语义研究主要围绕八个典型的英汉肤觉形容词展开,其中包括四个温度形容词——hot、cold、热、冷,和四个触觉形容词——hard、soft、硬、软。我们在分析这些肤觉形容词时主要涉及三个方面：以词典为基础的肤觉形容词的词汇概念、基于语料库的性质肤觉形容词与名词的组合,以及基于词典和语料库的与肤觉形容词相关的基本认知模式。我们通过这三个方面的分析研究分别总结出上述八个肤觉形容词的主要词汇概念、1173条性质肤觉形容词与名词的实际组合和与这八个肤觉形容词相关的意象图式模式、命题模式,以及68组主要的隐喻模式和转喻模式。
共时语义比较研究建立在上述共时语义研究的基础上,仍然从三个方面,即词汇概念、性质肤觉形容词与名词的组合和与肤觉形容词相关联的基本认知模式,对前文提及的八个典型的肤觉形容词进行比较,并且揭示出相关英汉肤觉及其它相关经验概念化的异同与成因。
历时语义比较研究主要是对共时语义比较研究的补充,针对两类肤觉形容词进行比较分析。这两类肤觉形容词分别反映了两个主要的、相互存在一定矛盾的语义变化路径。鉴于代表性和史料的可靠性,我们着重比较了keen、“锐”的历时语义发展,同时还探讨了前人对其矛盾路径有失偏颇的地方,并给出了引发该矛盾的、相对合理的解释。
通过对英汉肤觉形容词的认知语义学探究,我们最终归纳出以下四点主要发现：
1.体验性和典型性是英汉肤觉形容词的两个主要特征。
英汉肤觉形容词的体验性主要体现在以下三个方面：(1)肤觉形容词及其相关概念并不仅仅是对世界的客观反映,而且是直接根源于人和世界相互作用形成的肤觉经验。(2)由肤觉形容词引申而来的形容词及其相关概念间接根植于肤觉经验。对英汉肤觉形容词的共时和历时语义引申考察均证明,英汉肤觉形容词的语义延伸主要沿具体到抽象的路径发展。(3)英汉肤觉形容词的共时和历时语义变化均产生于相应的社会、文化背景。不同的社会、文化背景造成识解范围、内容和方式的根本差异,以及相应的概念结构和语法差异。
英汉肤觉形容词的语义和语法两方面均呈现典型性。(1)肤觉形容词的语义范畴大都构成原型范畴。肤觉形容词涉及肤觉经验的语义内容比视觉、听觉等其他感官、人类情感、性格等概念内容以及相关经验更典型,因为肤觉经验比其他经验更基本、更普遍。当然,随着时间与社会的变化,其他经验的重要性和普遍性也可能发生变化,从而在很大程度上导致典型性的动态性。但是,我们的研究和Shindo(2009)的研究均表明,事实上由于肤觉经验的重要性和普遍性,涉及肤觉经验的语义内容往往仍将维持其典型性。(2)由于主要受到语义典型性的影响,英汉肤觉形容词的相关语法也存在典型性问题。英语肤觉形容词属于非典型的英语形容词,处于形容词范畴的边缘,临界于英语动词范畴。汉语肤觉形容词则属于典型的汉语形容词,临界于汉语动词范畴。
2.关注识解目标对于研究者具有重要意义,而且对于不同的识解目标应当予以基本区分。
我们在研究中提出基本区分识解目标,即以人类为中心的识解和非人类为中心的识解。如果说体验性和典型性主要解答了“如何识解目标”这一问题,那么对以人类为中心的和非人类为中心的识解进行基本区分则回答了“什么是识解目标”这一问题。以人类为中心的识解指人们主要围绕人类进行的识解,包括人类的情感、评价、行为等。以非人类为中心的识解指人们主要针对非人类的事物进行的识解,比如物体或事件的状态或性质等。根据这一区分,我们将命题、隐喻、转喻模式主要分为两类——以人类为中心的和以非人类为中心的模式。另外,在区分两种识解的同时,我们发现这两种识解彼此相互联系,而不是截然分开的,因为实际上人类和非人类的事物不可避免地相互影响。
这种基本区分清楚地证实了体验性的相互作用特征。一方面,基本区分有助于研究者更加明确地展示与同一识解目标相关联的认知结构的内部联系。另一方面,基本区分有利于清晰地显示不同识解目标的彼此联系。更重要的是,与此同时,另一识解原则也相应得以揭示。
3.人们确定识解目标的原则是以人类为中心。基于该原则,我们发现英汉肤觉形容词的语义具有主观化趋势。
正是由于基本区分了识解目标,我们的研究揭示出另一重要识解原则——人类中心性或以人类为中心的原则,即人们的识解实际上是以人类为中心的。
在挖掘与英汉肤觉形容词相关的理想认知模式的过程中,我们发现：没有一个以人为中心的隐喻与以非人类为中心的隐喻相关联。与此相反,以非人类为中心的隐喻与以人类为中心的识解相关联。这表明非人类的事物往往只有与人类相联系才有意义。
我们的研究主要基于历时考察和以人类为中心的原则,发现英汉肤觉形容词的语义内容趋向主观化。典型的英语肤觉形容词与典型的汉语肤觉形容词相比,前者已被更广泛地应用于描述与人类相关的抽象经验。基于体验性、典型性和人类中心性的原则,我们认为随着社会的发展,典型的汉语肤觉形容词也将出现更多的反映人类抽象经验的词汇概念。
4.英汉肤觉形容词呈现出动词化趋势。
我们的研究具体指明了英汉肤觉形容词动词化趋势的五个方面：①大部分英语肤觉形容词都将呈现动词化趋势,但都不能彻底转化为动词；②只有极为典型的英语肤觉形容词才能真正转化为动词；③只有极不典型的英语肤觉形容词才不会呈现动词化趋势；④大部分汉语肤觉形容词都将彻底转化为动词；⑤大部分非典型的汉语肤觉形容词都不能真正转化为动词。
Adjectives both in English and Chinese are a major lexical class in the two languages. However, there are still some linguists (Zhao 1968, Lu 1979, Li & Thompson 1981) who, from biased perspectives, do not agree to treat adjectives in Chinese as an independent lexical class. We maintain that, adjectives in English and Chinese, as a principal type of words, are supposed to be taken as a research focus in linguistics and that skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese should naturally be given much attention as well.
With a survey of earlier studies, including research of adjectives in English and Chinese, linguistic studies more or less in relation to skin sensations and other human experiences, as well as non-linguistic analyses of skin sensations, we find those studies are manifestly inadequate in the following respects:1. Research of adjectives, especially semantics of adjectives in English and Chinese, is less carried out in linguistics than that of prepositions and verbs.2. At present, chiefly four semantic studies are to some extent related to skin-sense adjectives, including Balmas's investigation of tactile metaphors in English (2000), Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rakhilina's semantic study of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish (2006), Shindo's study focused on semantic extensions of sensory adjectives (2009), and Rakova's research of polysemy regarding adjectives, in particular, synaesthetic adjectives (2003). Notwithstanding, cognitive semantics of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from a cross-linguistic perspective has never been studied.3. Previous cognitive semantic research in respect of human experiences is mainly directed towards areas of space (Brugman 1981, 1983; Talmy 1983), emotions (King 1989, Kovecses 1990), motions (Matsumoto 1996), smell (Ibarretxe-Antunano 1999), and dimension (Vogel 2004). Moreover, most of those studies are concerned with lexical classes such as prepositions and verbs instead of adjectives.
The skin-sense adjective construed in this study is one type of the adjective, describing skin sensations and reflecting relevant skin-sense experiences. Skin sensations are those sensations stemming from the skin provoked by mechanical, chemical or other types of stimuli, primarily including the sense of temperature, touch, and pain. Accordingly, the skin-sense experience is the experience arising from human skin sensations.
We apply the prototype theory of categorization and the theory of idealized cognitive models in cognitive linguistics to synchronic semantic analyses and investigation of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, and, meanwhile, to semantic comparative research of such adjectives from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, revealing pertinent semantic and grammatical regularities of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
The prototype theory of categorization mainly entails the following four main points:1. Category is not defined by a set of sufficient and necessary conditions or features.2. Category members are not discrete and independent from each other. Instead, the members form a continuum and are interrelated by family resemblances.3. The boundaries of a category tend to be fuzzy rather than clear.4. Members of a category do not have equal status, acting as either prototypical or non-prototypical members of the category. The theory of idealized cognitive models is a further improvement on the prototype theory in cognitive linguistics. Such a theory, as stated by Lakoff (1987:68), is derived from Fillmore's frame semantics, Lakoff & Johnson's theory of metaphor and metonymy, Langacker's cognitive grammar, and Fauconnier's theory of mental spaces. In terms of Lakoff's arguments (1987:113-114,154), we treat idealized cognitive models in this study as four kinds of cognitive structures acting as parts of the conceptual system, principally including image schematic models, propositional models, metaphoric models, and metonymic models.
We for the most part make use of the qualitative method in the present study. From a large number of reference materials, we obtain abundant linguistic data for the research and adopt the qualitative method to reveal relevant semantic and grammatical regularities of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese. We, for example, select skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, collect and generalize basic lexical concepts, and disclose relevant cognitive models according to English and Chinese dictionaries such as Oxford English Dictionary and Newly Adapted Dictionary of Chinese Adjectives; examine semantics of the selected skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from a synchronic perspective; integrate both synchronic and diachronic perspectives to make semantic comparisons of pertinent skin-sense adjectives.in English and Chinese. Meanwhile, on the basis of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, Zhu's Corpus of Chinese, and the Online Chinese Corpus, we search out relevant practical combinations of skin-sense adjectives and nouns in English and Chinese, and bring forward corresponding cognitive models.
Our study is comprised of three major parts:synchronic semantic analyses of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese, synchronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese, and diachronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese.
The synchronic semantic survey is chiefly directed towards eight prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese-four temperature adjectives, hot, cold, re执'hot', leng冷'cold', and four touch adjectives, hard, soft, ying硬'hard', and ruan软'soft'. In the analysis of semantics regarding each of these skin-sense adjectives, three major aspects are involved-lexical concepts of the skin-sense adjectives predominantly according to dictionaries, combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns based on corpora, and primary cognitive models tied to skin-sense adjectives built on both dictionaries and corpora. With the examination of the three aspects, lexical concepts of the eight skin-sense adjectives are generalized and 1,173 groups of actual combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns, together with pertinent image schemas, propositions,68 groups of metaphors and metonymies, are extracted and sorted out.
Synchronic semantic comparisons are grounded in the abovementioned synchronic semantics. The eight prototypical English and Chinese skin-sense adjectives are still compared from the three respects-lexical concepts, combinations of attributive skin-sense adjectives and nouns, and relevant cognitive models. Corresponding construal similarities and differences between English and Chinese in regard to skin sensations and other relevant experiences, along with associated causes, are additionally exposed by such synchronic semantic comparisons.
Diachronic semantic comparisons of skin-sense adjectives between English and Chinese, on the whole acting as a perspective supplementing the synchronic semantic examination, are centered on the comparison between two types of skin-sense adjectives. Such two classes of skin-sense adjectives respectively represent two primary and somewhat inconsistent semantic changing paths. In view of representativity and the reliability of historical resources, we particularly focus on comparing the semantic development of keen and rui锐'keen'. In addition, some biased explanations about the inconsistent semantic development are discussed and comparatively realistic accounts of the divergence are proposed.
At last, we draw the following four principal findings by means of the cognitive semantic investigation of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
1. Embodiment and prototypicality are two essential characteristics of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese.
Embodiment of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese is largely exhibited by the subsequent three points. (1) The emergence of skin-sense adjectives and concepts of these adjectives per se, rather than merely objective reflections of the world and having little to do with purely scientific parameters, are directly rooted in skin-sense experiences stemmed from mutual interactions between the human body and the world. (2) Adjectives extended from skin-sense adjectives and concepts linked with these extended adjectives are indirectly grounded in skin-sense experiences. The survey of semantic extensions of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives demonstrate that the semantic development path of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese chiefly shifts from concrete to abstract. (3) The synchronic semantic extension and diachronic semantic change of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese occur under pertinent social and cultural backgrounds. Different social and cultural experiences lead to essentially divergent construal scope, content, means, disparately conceptual structures, and grammatical discrepancies.
Prototypicality of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese is manifested by both semantic and grammatical respects. (1) Semantic categories of skin-sense adjectives by and large make up prototype categories. Compared with other conceptual content in reference to vision, audition and other senses, human emotions, and personality, etc, and relevant experiences, the semantic content of skin-sense adjectives concerning skin-sense experiences, as a rule, is more prototypical, since skin-sense experiences function more basically and spread more widely than other experiences. Undoubtedly, with the development of time and society, magnitude and frequency of occurrences with respect to other experiences may vary, which to a large degree gives rise to the dynamic prototypicality. Notwithstanding, as corroborated by our study and Shindo's research (2009), semantic content regarding skin-sense experiences tends to remain prototypical, which is in essence attributed to the fundamental roles and prevalence of skin-sense experiences. (2) Largely controlled by semantic prototypicality, grammatical aspects related to skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese are for the most part indications of prototypicality as well. Skin-sense adjectives in English are non-prototypical members of English adjectives, situated in the margin of the adjective category and approximating to the verb class in English. Skin-sense adjectives in Chinese are prototypical adjectives in Chinese, placed in the center of the Chinese adjective category and close to the category of Chinese verbs.
2. It is noteworthy for researchers to take into account the construal focus. Moreover, different construal focuses ought to be basically discriminated.
In process of the present research, we suggest basically differentiating between distinct construal focuses-human-centered construal and nonhuman-centered construal. If embodiment and prototypicality have provided chief solutions to the problem "how to construe the focus", then the basic discrimination between human-centered and nonhuman-centered construal mostly answers the question "what is the construal focus". Human-centered construal refers to the human construal that is largely focused on human beings, including human emotions, evaluations, and actions, etc. Nonhuman-centered construal is the human construal centered on nonhuman things, such as states and qualities of objects or events. In terms of the basic differentiation, we generally divide cognitive models of propositions, metaphors, and metonymies into two primary kinds-human-centered and nonhuman-centered cognitive models. Furthermore, while basically distinguished from each other, the two kinds of construal are in the meantime conceived of as interconnected with each other instead of being absolutely separated, since humankind and nonhuman things in effect inevitably affect each other.
Such a distinction definitely corroborates the interactional characteristic of embodiment. On the one hand, the differentiation helps researchers to more clearly reveal the internal relationship between cognitive structures tied to the same construal focus. On the other, with the basic distinction, the close relationship between different construal focuses is manifestly exhibited. More importantly, at the same time a further construal principle is accordingly disclosed.
3. The tenet of establishing the construal focus is anthropocentricity. Meanwhile, chiefly based on this principle, we discover that skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese tend to be subjectified.
It is to a great extent with the help of the basic distinction between human-centered and nonhuman-centered construal that we find out another significant construal tenet-anthropocentricity or the human-centered rule-which states that human construal is in essence centered on human beings.
While unveiling the idealized cognitive models, we discover that no human-centered metaphor is tied to nonhuman-centered metaphor. By contrast, nonhuman-centered metaphor is normally connected with pertinent human-centered metaphor, indicating that nonhuman things are merely meaningful when they are in association with human beings.
According to the diachronic semantic examination and the tenet of anthropocentricity, the semantic content of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese has a tendency to be subjectified. At present, prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English have been more extensively applied to delineation of abstract experiences connected with humankind than those in Chinese. It is expected that prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese are most probably to be tied to more abstract lexical concepts centered on human beings as the society develops.
4. Skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese are liable to be verbalized.
The general verbalization trend of skin-sense adjectives in English and Chinese can be predicted. Five specific aspects in regard to the verbalization trend are pointed out:(ⅰ) Most skin-sense adjectives in English have the tendency of verbalization but will not be completely verbalized; (ⅱ) Only the most prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English will be actually verbalized; (ⅲ) Only the most non-prototypical skin-sense adjectives in English will not have the tendency of verbalization; (ⅳ) The majority of prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese will be absolutely verbalized; (ⅴ) The majority of non-prototypical skin-sense adjectives in Chinese will not be totally verbalized.
引文
Allwood, J.2003. Meaning potential 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:Moulton de Gruyter.29-65.
Apresjan, J. D.1992. Lexical Semantics:User's Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary [M]. Ann Arbor:Karoma Publishers.
Apresjan, J. D.2000. Systematic Lexicography [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Aristotle.350 BC. On the soul, trans. J. A. Smith [OL]. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html (accessed 10/10/2008).
Asch, S. E.1955. On the use of metaphor in description of persons [A]. In H. Werner (ed.). On Expressive Language [C]. Worcester:Clark University Press.29-38.
Asch, S. E.1958. The metaphor:A psychological inquiry [A]. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (eds.). Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. [C]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.86-94.
Asch, S. E. & H. Nerlove.1960. The development of double function terms in children [A]. In B. Kaplan & S. Wapner (eds.). Perspectives in Psychological Theory [C]. New York:International Universities Press.47-60.
Athanasiadou, A.2001. The conceptualisation and the construal of the concept of Width in English [A]. In E. Nemeth (ed.). Cognition in Language Use [C]. Antwerp:International Pragmatics Association. 1-11.
Balmas, M.2000. Tactile Interaction as the Source Domain of Metaphoric Extensions [D]. Master's Thesis. Torun:Nicolaus Copernicus University.
Baker, J.2000. Skin and the sense of touch [OL]. http://www.eduref.org/Virtual/Lessons/Health/Body Systems and S enses/BSS0014.html (accessed 10/01/2009).
Barcelona, A. (ed.).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney.1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar [A]. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (eds.). Language Acquisition:The State of the Art [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bergen, B.2008. Construal [OL]. http://www2.hawaii.edu/-bergen/ling640G/lec/lec7.htm (accessed 09/10/2008).
Berlin, B. & P. Kay.1969. Basic Color Terms:Their University and Evolution [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Biber, D., S. Conrad & R. Reppen.1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating Language Structure in Use [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Black, M.1993. More about metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.19-41.
Blackwell, A.1998. Adjective in Acquisition:On the Semantic and Syntactic Development [D]. PhD Dissertation. Boston:Boston University.
Brugman, C.1981. Story of'Over':Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon [D]. Master's Thesis. Berkeley:University of California.
Brugman, C.1983. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec [A]. In A. Schlichter, W. L. Chafe & L. Hinton (eds.). Survey of Californian and Other Indian Languages (Report Number 4) [C].239-290.
Bybee, J. L. & C. L. Moder.1983. Morphological classes as natural categories [J]. Language 59 (2):251-270.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Casad, E.1982. Cora Locationals and Structured Imagery [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. San Diego:University of California.
Caterina, M. J., M. A. Schumacher, M. Tominaga, T. A. Rosen, J. D. Levine & D. Julius.1997. The capsaicin receptor:A heat-activated ion channel in the pain pathway [J]. Nature 389 (6653):816-824.
Chierchia, G. & S. McConnell-Ginet.1990. Meaning and Grammar:An Introduction to Semantics [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Classen, C. (ed.).2005. The Book of Touch [M]. Oxford:Berg.
Clausner, T. C. & W. Croft.1999. Domains and image schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1):1-31.
Coleman, L. & P. Kay.1981. Prototype semantics:The English word lie [J]. Language 57(1):26-44.
Collins Thesaurus Dictionary (3rd edition) [Z].2001. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Coren, S., L. M. Ward, & J. T. Enns.1994. Sensation and Perception (4th edition) [M]. New York:Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Croft, W.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations:the Cognitive Organization of Information [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago.
Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4):335-370.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M.2008/2010. The corpus of contemporary American English [OL]. http://www.americancorpus.org (accessed from 30/08/2008 to 30/08/2010).
Day, S.1996. Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors [OL]. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-32-day.html (accessed 30/08/2007).
Derrida, J.2005. On Touching-Jean-Luc Nancy [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Dirven, R. & J. R. Taylor.1988. The conceptualization of vertical space in English:The case of tall [A]. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.379-402.
Dixon, R. W.1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? [M]. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Dowty, D.1972. Temporally descriptive adjectives [A]. In J. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and Semantics (Volume I) [C]. New York:Seminar Press.
Edholm, O. G.1978. Man-Hot and Cold [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Ennis, M.1997. Touching [OL]. http://www.fi.edu/qa97/me10/me10.html (accessed 10/01/2009).
Evans, V.2005. The meaning of time:Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure [J]. Journal of Linguistics 41(1):1-39.
Evans, V.2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4):491-534.
Evans, V. & M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V. & J. Zinken.2006. Figurative language in a modern theory of meaning construction:A lexical concepts and cognitive models approach [OL]. http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/psychology/staff/down loads/filetodownload,68133,en.pdf (accessed 02/05/2008).
Fillmore, C.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood & K. Whistler (eds.). Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Amsterdam:North Holland.123-131.
Frawley, W.1992. Linguistic Semantics [M]. Hillsdale:Laurence Erlbaum.
Gardenfors, P.1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics [A]. In A. Jens & P. Gardenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics-Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.19-36.
Geeraerts, D.1994. Diachronic Prototype Semantics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, D. (ed.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. & S. Grondelaers.1995. Looking back at anger:Cultural traditions and metaphoric patterns [A]. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (eds.). Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.153-179.
Gibbs, R. W.1994. The Poetics of Mind [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. & G. Steen.1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.1970. Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives [J]. Language 46 (4):816-837.
Givon, T.1986. Prototypes:Between Plato and Wittgenstein [A]. In C. Craig (ed.). Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.77-102.
Givon, T.1984. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax:An Introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goatly, A.1997. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London:Routledge.
Goodman, N.1968. Languages of Art [M]. Indianapolis:Hackett.
Goossens, L.1995. Metaphtonymy:The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action [A]. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. Simon-Vandenbergen & J. Vanparys (eds.). By Word of Mouth:Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.159-174.
Goossens, L.1998. Meaning extensions and text type [J]. English Studies 79 (2):120-143.
Grady, J. E.1999. A Typology of Motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblances [A]. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 79-100.
Grady, J.2005. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10):1595-1614.
Greenbaum, S. & R. Quirk.1990. A Student's Grammar of the English Language [M]. Harlow:Longman.
Gries, S. Th.2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics:The many meanings of to run [A]. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics:Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.57-99.
Haser, V.2005. Metaphor, Metonymy and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Heller, M. A. & W. Schiff (eds.).1991. The Psychology of Touch [C]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hensel, H.1981. Thermoreception and Temperature Regulation [M]. London:Academic Press.
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott.1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hundsnurscher, F.& J. Splett.1982. Semantik der Adjektive im Deutschen: Analyse der Semantischen Relationen [M]. Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ibarretxe-Antunano, I.1999. Metaphoric mappings in the sense of smell [A]. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. & G. J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C].29-45.
Indurkhya, B.1994. The thesis that all knowledge is metaphoric and meanings of metaphor [J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9 (1): 61-73.
Jackendoff, R.1983. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1992. Languages of the Mind [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. & D. Aaron.1991. Review of Lakoff & Turner, More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor [J]. Language 67 (2): 320-338.
Johnson. C.1997. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE [A]. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha & S. Wilcox (eds.). Cultural Typological and Psychological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.155-169.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M.1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3 (4):345-366.
Johnson, M. & G. Lakoff.2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3):245-263.
Julius, D. & A. I. Basbaum.2001. Molecular mechanisms of nociception [J]. Nature 413 (6852):203-210.
Katz, D.1989. The World of Touch [M], trans. L. E. Krueger. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kempton, W.1981. The Folk Classification of Ceramics:A Study of Cognitive Prototypes [M]. New York:Academic Press.
King, B.1989. The Conceptual Structure of Emotional Experience in Chinese [D]. PhD Dissertation. Columbus:Ohio State University.
Kittay, E. F.1987. Metaphor:Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & E. Rakhilina.2006. "Some like it hot":on semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish [J]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59 (2):253-269.
Kovecses, Z.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Z.1988. The Language of Love [M]. Lewisburgh:Associated University Press.
Kovecses, Z.1990. Emotion Concepts [M]. New York:Springer.
Kovecses, Z.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Krantz, J. H.2006. Experiencing sensation and perception [OL]. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/sensation (accessed 12/05/2008).
Kreitzer, A.1997. Multiple levels of schematization:a study in the conceptualization of space [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4):291-325.
Kruger, L. (ed.). Pain and Touch (2nd edition) [C]. San Diego:Academic Press.
Labov, W.1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In C. J. Baily & R. Shuy (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English [C]. Washington D. C.:Georgetown University Press.340-373.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G.1988. Cognitive semantics [A]. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio & P. Violi (eds.). Meaning and Mental Representations [C]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.119-154.
Lakoff, G.1990. The invariance hypothesis:Is abstract reason based on image schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39-74.
Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.202-251.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar (Volume Ⅰ) [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1988. The nature of grammatical valence [A]. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.91-125.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume II) [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1):107-151.
Laurence, S. & E. Margolis.1999. Concepts and cognitive science [A]. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds.). Concepts:Core Readings [C]. Cambridge:MIT Press.3-81.
Lehrer, A.1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lewis, D.1972. General semantics [A]. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.). Semantics of Natural Language [C]. Dordrecht:Reidel. 169-218.
Li, C. & S. A. Thompson.1981. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Lindner, S. J.1981. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP [D]. PhD Dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
Lukes, D.2008. Review of Verena Haser, metaphor, metonymy and experientialist philosophy:Challenging cognitive semantics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2):313-324.
Lyons, J.1995. An Introduction to Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
MacLaury, R. E.1985. Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Malouf, R.2000. Verbal gerunds as mixed categories in head-driven phrase structure grammar [A]. In R. Borsley (ed.). The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories [C]. New York:Academic Press. 133-166.
Marx, W.1983. The meaning-confining function of the adjective [A]. In G. Rickheit & M. Bock (eds.). Psycholinguistic Studies in Language Processing [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.70-81.
Matsumoto, Y.1996. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2):183-226.
McCawley, J.1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English (Volume II) [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
McCawley, J.1992. Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20 (2):211-246.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [Z/OL]. http://www.merriam-webster.com (accessed 05/01/2009).
Montagu, A.1986. Touching:The Human Significance of the Skin (3rd edition) [M]. New York:Harper & Row.
Murphy, G. L.1996. On metaphoric representation [J]. Cognition 60 (2): 173-204.
Murphy, G. L.1997. Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation [J]. Cognition 62 (1):99-108.
Murray, J. A. H., H. Bradley, W. A. Craigie & C. T. Onions.1989. Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) [Z], eds. J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Noren, K. & P. Linell.2007. Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts:An empirical substantiation [J]. Pragmatics 17 (3):387-416.
Ogden, C. K.1967. Opposition:A Linguistic and Psychological Analysis [M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards (eds.).1923. The Meaning of Meaning [C]. London:Routledge & Kegan.
Paradis, C.2000. Reinforcing adjectives:a cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization [A]. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (eds.). Generative Theory and Corpus Studies:Topics in English Linguistics [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.233-258.
Paradis, C.2001. Adjectives and boundedness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1):47-65.
Paradis, C.2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes 15 (4):541-573.
Peters, I. & W. Peters.2000. The treatment of adjectives in SIMPLE: Theoretical observations [OL]. http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/non/lrec2000/pdf/366.pdf (accessed 08/12/08).
Plato.360 BC. Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett [OL]. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html (accessed 09/10/2008).
Popova, Y.2005. Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia [A]. In B. Hampe (ed.). From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.395-419.
Pustejovsky, J.1991. The generative lexicon [J]. Computational Linguistics 17 (4):409-441.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Putz, M. & R. Dirven (eds.).1996. The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London:Longman.
Rakova, M.2003. The Extent of the Literal:Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts [M]. New York:Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
Raskin, V. & S. Nirenburg.1995. Lexical semantics of adjectives:A micro theory of adjectival meaning [OL]. http://www.purdue.edu/-raskin/adjective.pdf(accessed 19/10/2008).
Radden, G.2000. How metonymic are metaphors? [A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and. Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.93-108.
Richards, I. A.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, T.2001. Pragmatism, ideology and embodiment:William James and the philosophical foundations of cognitive linguistics [A]. In E. Sandikcioglu & R. Dirven (eds.). Language and Ideology:Cognitive Theoretical Approaches [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.49-81.
Rohrer, T.2005. Image schemata in the brain [A]. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (eds.). From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.165-196.
Rohrer, T.2007. Embodiment and experientialism [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. USA:Oxford University Press.25-47.
Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328-350.
Rosch, E. H.1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General 104 (3):192-233.
Rosch, E. H.1977. Human categorization [A]. In N. Warren (ed.). Studies in Cross-linguistic Psychology [C]. London:Academic Press.1-49.
Rosch, E. H.1978. Principles of categorization [A]. In B. Lloyd & E. Rosch (eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. Hillsdale:Erlbaum. 27-48.
Ross, J. R.1972. The category squish:Endstation Hauptwort [A]. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi & G. C. Phares (eds.). Papers of the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago.316-328.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. 109-132.
Saeed, J.1997. Semantics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Schiffman, H. R.1996. Sensation and Perception:An Integrated Approach (4th edition) [M]. New York:Wiley.
Seitz, J.2006. The neural, evolutionary, developmental, and bodily basis of metaphor [OL]. http://www.york.cuny.edu/-seitz/pubs.html (accessed 09/09/2007).
Shen, Y.1997. Cognitive constraints on poetic figures [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (1):33-71.
Shindo, M.2009. Semantic Extension, Subjectification, and Verbalization [M]. Lanham:University Press of America.
Siegel, M.1979. Measure adjectives in Montague grammar [A]. In S. Davis & M. Mithun (eds.). Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar [C]. Austin:University of Texas Press.223-262.
Sinha, C. & K. Jensen de Lopez.2000. Language, culture and embodiment of spatial cognition [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1-2): 17-41.
Sjostrom, S.1999. From vision to cognition:A study of metaphor and polysemy in Swedish [A]. In J. Allwood & P. Gardenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics:Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.67-85.
Solt, S.2009. The Semantics of Adjectives of Quantity [D]. PhD Dissertation. New York:City University of New York.
Stern, J.2000. Metaphor in Context [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Stibbe, A.1996. The metaphoric construction of illness in Chinese culture [J]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 7 (3-4):177-88.
Sutrop, U.1998. Basic temperature terms and subjective temperature scale [J]. Lexicology 4 (1):61-104.
Sutrop, U.1999. Temperature terms in the Baltic area [A]. In M. Erelt (ed.). Estonian:Typological Studies [C]. Tartu:Publications of the University of Tartu.185-203.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics:Metaphoric and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Szwedek, A.2000. Senses, perception and metaphors (of object and objectification) [A]. In S. Puppel & K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk. (eds.). Multis vocibus de lingua [C]. Poznan:Neophilological Department. 143-153.
Szwedek, A.2002. Objectification:From object perception to metaphor creation [A]. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics Today [C]. Berlin:Peter Lang.159-175.
Talmy, L.1977. Rubber-sheet cognition in language [A]. In W. Beach, S. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds.). Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.612-628.
Talmy, L.1983. How language structures space [A]. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application [C]. New York:Plenum Press.225-282.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and thought [J]. Cognitive Science 12(1):49-100.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Taylor, J.1992. Old problems:Adjectives in cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3 (1):1-36.
Taylor, J.1989. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J.2002. Near synonyms as coextensive categories:'High'and 'tall'revisited [J]. Language Sciences 25 (3):263-284.
Thompson,.S. A.1998. A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation [A]. In A. Siewierska & J. J. Song (eds.). Case, Typology and Grammar [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.309-341.
Traugott, E. C. & R. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A.& V. Evans.2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks:the case of over [J]. Language 77 (4):724-765.
Ullmann, S.1959. The Principles of Semantics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Ullmann, S.1962. Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Longman.
Vandeloise, C.1991. Spatial Prepositions:A Case Study from French [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C.1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 5 (2):157-184.
Verhagen, A.2006. Construal and perspectivisation [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Vogel, A.2004. Swedish Dimensional Adjectives [D]. PhD Dissertation. Stockholm:Stockholm University.
Weber, E. H.1978. The Sense of Touch [M], eds. and trans. H. E. Ross & D. J. Murray. London:Academic Press.
Wierzbicka, A.1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. Ann Arbor:Karoma.
Wierzbicka, A.1986. Metaphors linguists live by:Lakoff & Johnson contra Aristotle [J]. Papers in Linguistics 19 (2):287-313.
Williams, J. M.1976. Synaesthetic adjectives:A possible law of semantic change [J]. Language 52 (2):461-478.
Wittgenstein, L.1953. Philosophical Investigations [M], eds. G. H. Wright, R. Rhees & G. E. M. Anscombe, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Blackwell.
Yu, N.1995. Metaphoric expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese [J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2):59-92.
Yu, N.1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor:A Perspective from Chinese [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yu, N.2003. Synesthetic metaphor:A cognitive perspective [J].Journal of Literary Semantics 32 (1):19-34.
Zlatev, J.1997. Situated Embodiment:Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning [M]. Stockholm:Stockholm University.
安汝磐、赵玉玲(编),2003,《新编汉语形容词词典》[Z]。北京：经济科学出版社
白解红,2000,语境与意义[J], 《外语与外语教学》(4)：21-24。
白解红,2006,从认知心理学的角度看语义和语法的关系[J],《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》(6)：99-103。
崔永华,1990,汉语形容词分类的现状和问题[J],《语言教学与研究》(3) ： 132-140。
傅婧,1954,副词跟形容词的界限问题[J],《中国语文》(11)：18-19。
郭锐,2001,汉语形容词的划界[J],《中国语言学报》(10)：17-33。
《汉典》(Z/OL),http://www.zdic.net(2008年6月20日读取)。
韩 凯 ,2003, 浅谈触觉[OL],http://www.cctv.com/program/bjjt/20031021.shtml(2007年10月20日读取)。
韩秀英,1993, 《后缀形容词例解》[M]。南京：江苏教育出版社。
汉语大字典编辑委员会(编),2006, 《汉语大字典》[Z]。武汉：湖北辞书出版社。
韩玉国,2001,现代汉语形容词的句法功能及再分类[J],《语言教学与研究》(2)：47-54。
贺阳,1996,性质形容词作状语情况的考察[J], 《语文研究》(1)：13-18。
胡德明,2003,儿童空间维度形容词发展顺序的理论解释[J],《世界汉语教学》 (3)：61-66。
胡明扬,2000,关于“名物化”问题[J],《华语教学与研究》(1)：29-35。
蓝纯,2003,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
黎锦熙,1924,《新著国语文法》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
李明,1996,AB式双音节形容词重叠式的考察[J],《语言教学与研究》(1)：73-82。
李泉,2005,单音节形容词原型性研究。博士学位论文[D]。北京：北京语言大学。
林书武,1998,“愤怒”的概念隐喻[J], 《外语与外语教学》(2)：9-13。
林正军,2004,从历时及认知的角度看“一词多义”现象。硕士学位论文[D]。长春：东北师范大学。
刘丹青,1988,汉藏语系重叠形式的分析模式[J],《语言研究》(1)：167-175。
刘家荣,1997,多义词Over及其语义链[J],《现代外语》(2)：65-69。
刘琦,2006,论形容词的非多义性：形容词在形名组合中的讨论。硕士学位论文[D]。杭州：浙江大学。
刘正光,2006, 《语言非范畴化：语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘正光,2007, 《隐喻的认知研究——理论与实践》[M]。湖南：湖南人民出版社。
陆俭明,1989,说量词形容词[J],《语言教学与研究》(3)：46-59。
陆一帆,1985, 《文艺心理学》[M]。南京：江苏文艺出版社。
吕叔湘,1942, 《中国文法要略》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1979, 《汉语语法分析问题》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1990,形容词使用情况的一个考察[A],载吕叔湘(编),《吕叔湘文集》(第二卷)[C]。北京：商务印书馆。221-229。
沐莘,1986,试谈英汉多义词的比较[J], 《外国语》(6)：40-42。
彭懿、白解红,2007,汉英“愤怒”情感新词的认知对比研究[J], 《外国语》 (6)： 32-38。
彭懿、白解红,2008,通感认知新论[J], 《外语与外语教学》(1)：14-]7。
彭懿、白解红,2010,形容词多义问题的识解差异探究[J],《外语与外语教学》 (3)：12-15。
钱钟书,1962,通感[J], 《文学评论》(1)：13-17。
秦衍,2004,有关日语感觉形容词的语义转换——以味觉形容词为中心。硕士学位论文[D]。上海：上海外国语大学。
石毓智,1991,现代汉语的肯定性形容词[J], 《中国语文》 (3)：167-174。
石毓智,1996,形容词的有无标记用法与疑问句式的交错关系[J],《汉语学习》 (5)：10-15。
石毓智,2000,《语法的认知语义基础》[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
石毓智,2004,《汉语研究的类型学视野》[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
石毓智,2006,《语法的概念基础》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
石毓智,2007,语言假设中的证据问题[J],《语言科学》(4)：39-51。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谭景春,1998,名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题[J],《中国语文》 (5)：368-377。
唐厚广、车竞,1985,形容词接动态助词动词化初探[J],《锦州师院学报》(2)：92-97,99。
王力,1943, 《中国现代语法》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
王启龙,2003, 《现代汉语形容词计量研究》[M]。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
汪少华,2002,通感·联想·认知[J], 《现代外语》(2)：187-194。
王苏,1987, 《中国大百科全书：普通心理学》[Z],北京：中国大百科全书出版社
王雁,2002, 《普通心理学》[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
王寅,2002,认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J],《外语教学与研究》 (2)：82-89。
王寅,体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J], 《哲学动态》(7)：24-30。
王寅,2004,语义外在论与语义内在论——认知语言学与TG语法在内在论上的分歧[A]。载束定芳(编), 《语言的认知研究：认知语言学论文精选》[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。88-102。
王寅,2005, 《认知语法概论》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
王寅,2007,汉语“动名构造”与英语"VN构造”的对比——一项基于语料库“吃/eat构造”的对比研究[J]。 《外语教学》(2)：1-6。
邢福义,1965,谈“数量结构+形容词”[J],《中国语文》(1)：34-36。
邢福义,1990, 《形容词短语》[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
杨波、张辉,2007,跨感官感知与通感形容词研究[J], 《外语教学》(1)：16-21。
杨宽仁,1985,论非定形容词[J], 《语言研究》(2)：129-141。
杨仕章,1998,通感与俄语感觉形容词的词义演变[J], 《外语学刊》(2)：82-85。
杨治良,1988, 《基础实验心理学》[M]。兰州：甘肃人民出版社
俞敏,1957, 《名词、动词、形容词》[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
张伯江,1994,性质形容词的范围和层次[R]。第八次现代汉语语法讨论会论文,江苏苏州,1994年10月。
张国宪,1995,论双价形容词[A], 《现代汉语配价语法研究》[M]。北京：北京大学出版社
张国宪,1996,形容词的计量[J], 《世界汉语教学》(4)：35-44。
张辉,2000,汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究[J],《外国语》(5)：39-45。
张辉,2004,认知语义学述评[A]。载束定芳(编), 《语言的认知研究：认知语言学论文精选》[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社73-87。
张辉、宋伟,2004,ERP与语言研究[J], 《外语电化教学》(6)38-68。
张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J],《外国语》(4)：54-58。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》(1)：40-43。
张建理,2007,英语形—名结构的动态识解研究[J],《外语教学与研究》(2)： 97-103。
张旺熹,1998,“动+得+形”结构的变体形式[R]。第六届国际汉语教学讨论会论文,德国汉诺威,1998年8月。
张耀翔,1987, 《感觉心理》[M]。北京：工人出版社
赵彦春,2003, 《认知词典学探索》[M]。上海：上海外语教学出版社。
赵艳芳,2000, 《认知语言学概论》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版 社。
赵元任,1968/1980,《中国话的文法》(A Grammar of Spoken Chinese)[M],丁邦新译。香港：香港中文大学出版社
赵之昂,2005,肤觉经验与审美意识。博士学位论文[D]。济南：山东师范大学。
郑怀德、孟庆海(编),2003, 《汉语形容词用法词典》[z]。北京：商务印书馆。
中国大百科全书编辑委员会(编),1987, 《中国大百科全书》[z]。北京：中国大百科全书出版社。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编),2005, 《现代汉语词典》[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱德熙,1956,现代汉语形容词研究[J],《语言研究》(1)：83-111。
朱德熙,1982, 《语法讲义》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱光潜,1987, 《朱光潜全集》[M]。合肥：安徽教育出版社。
Apresjan, J. D.1992. Lexical Semantics:User's Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary [M]. Ann Arbor:Karoma Publishers.
Apresjan, J. D.2000. Systematic Lexicography [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Aristotle.350 BC. On the soul, trans. J. A. Smith [OL]. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html (accessed 10/10/2008).
Asch, S. E.1955. On the use of metaphor in description of persons [A]. In H. Werner (ed.). On Expressive Language [C]. Worcester:Clark University Press.29-38.
Asch, S. E.1958. The metaphor:A psychological inquiry [A]. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (eds.). Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. [C]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.86-94.
Asch, S. E. & H. Nerlove.1960. The development of double function terms in children [A]. In B. Kaplan & S. Wapner (eds.). Perspectives in Psychological Theory [C]. New York:International Universities Press.47-60.
Athanasiadou, A.2001. The conceptualisation and the construal of the concept of Width in English [A]. In E. Nemeth (ed.). Cognition in Language Use [C]. Antwerp:International Pragmatics Association. 1-11.
Balmas, M.2000. Tactile Interaction as the Source Domain of Metaphoric Extensions [D]. Master's Thesis. Torun:Nicolaus Copernicus University.
Baker, J.2000. Skin and the sense of touch [OL]. http://www.eduref.org/Virtual/Lessons/Health/Body Systems and S enses/BSS0014.html (accessed 10/01/2009).
Barcelona, A. (ed.).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney.1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar [A]. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (eds.). Language Acquisition:The State of the Art [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bergen, B.2008. Construal [OL]. http://www2.hawaii.edu/-bergen/ling640G/lec/lec7.htm (accessed 09/10/2008).
Berlin, B. & P. Kay.1969. Basic Color Terms:Their University and Evolution [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Biber, D., S. Conrad & R. Reppen.1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating Language Structure in Use [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Black, M.1993. More about metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.19-41.
Blackwell, A.1998. Adjective in Acquisition:On the Semantic and Syntactic Development [D]. PhD Dissertation. Boston:Boston University.
Brugman, C.1981. Story of'Over':Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon [D]. Master's Thesis. Berkeley:University of California.
Brugman, C.1983. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec [A]. In A. Schlichter, W. L. Chafe & L. Hinton (eds.). Survey of Californian and Other Indian Languages (Report Number 4) [C].239-290.
Bybee, J. L. & C. L. Moder.1983. Morphological classes as natural categories [J]. Language 59 (2):251-270.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Casad, E.1982. Cora Locationals and Structured Imagery [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. San Diego:University of California.
Caterina, M. J., M. A. Schumacher, M. Tominaga, T. A. Rosen, J. D. Levine & D. Julius.1997. The capsaicin receptor:A heat-activated ion channel in the pain pathway [J]. Nature 389 (6653):816-824.
Chierchia, G. & S. McConnell-Ginet.1990. Meaning and Grammar:An Introduction to Semantics [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Classen, C. (ed.).2005. The Book of Touch [M]. Oxford:Berg.
Clausner, T. C. & W. Croft.1999. Domains and image schemas [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1):1-31.
Coleman, L. & P. Kay.1981. Prototype semantics:The English word lie [J]. Language 57(1):26-44.
Collins Thesaurus Dictionary (3rd edition) [Z].2001. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Coren, S., L. M. Ward, & J. T. Enns.1994. Sensation and Perception (4th edition) [M]. New York:Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Croft, W.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations:the Cognitive Organization of Information [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago.
Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4):335-370.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M.2008/2010. The corpus of contemporary American English [OL]. http://www.americancorpus.org (accessed from 30/08/2008 to 30/08/2010).
Day, S.1996. Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors [OL]. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-32-day.html (accessed 30/08/2007).
Derrida, J.2005. On Touching-Jean-Luc Nancy [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Dirven, R. & J. R. Taylor.1988. The conceptualization of vertical space in English:The case of tall [A]. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.379-402.
Dixon, R. W.1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? [M]. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Dowty, D.1972. Temporally descriptive adjectives [A]. In J. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and Semantics (Volume I) [C]. New York:Seminar Press.
Edholm, O. G.1978. Man-Hot and Cold [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Ennis, M.1997. Touching [OL]. http://www.fi.edu/qa97/me10/me10.html (accessed 10/01/2009).
Evans, V.2005. The meaning of time:Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure [J]. Journal of Linguistics 41(1):1-39.
Evans, V.2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4):491-534.
Evans, V. & M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V. & J. Zinken.2006. Figurative language in a modern theory of meaning construction:A lexical concepts and cognitive models approach [OL]. http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/psychology/staff/down loads/filetodownload,68133,en.pdf (accessed 02/05/2008).
Fillmore, C.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood & K. Whistler (eds.). Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [C]. Amsterdam:North Holland.123-131.
Frawley, W.1992. Linguistic Semantics [M]. Hillsdale:Laurence Erlbaum.
Gardenfors, P.1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics [A]. In A. Jens & P. Gardenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics-Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.19-36.
Geeraerts, D.1994. Diachronic Prototype Semantics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, D. (ed.).2006. Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. & S. Grondelaers.1995. Looking back at anger:Cultural traditions and metaphoric patterns [A]. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (eds.). Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.153-179.
Gibbs, R. W.1994. The Poetics of Mind [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. & G. Steen.1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.1970. Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives [J]. Language 46 (4):816-837.
Givon, T.1986. Prototypes:Between Plato and Wittgenstein [A]. In C. Craig (ed.). Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.77-102.
Givon, T.1984. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax:An Introduction [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Goatly, A.1997. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London:Routledge.
Goodman, N.1968. Languages of Art [M]. Indianapolis:Hackett.
Goossens, L.1995. Metaphtonymy:The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action [A]. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. Simon-Vandenbergen & J. Vanparys (eds.). By Word of Mouth:Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.159-174.
Goossens, L.1998. Meaning extensions and text type [J]. English Studies 79 (2):120-143.
Grady, J. E.1999. A Typology of Motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblances [A]. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 79-100.
Grady, J.2005. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10):1595-1614.
Greenbaum, S. & R. Quirk.1990. A Student's Grammar of the English Language [M]. Harlow:Longman.
Gries, S. Th.2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics:The many meanings of to run [A]. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics:Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.57-99.
Haser, V.2005. Metaphor, Metonymy and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Heller, M. A. & W. Schiff (eds.).1991. The Psychology of Touch [C]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hensel, H.1981. Thermoreception and Temperature Regulation [M]. London:Academic Press.
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott.1993. Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hundsnurscher, F.& J. Splett.1982. Semantik der Adjektive im Deutschen: Analyse der Semantischen Relationen [M]. Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ibarretxe-Antunano, I.1999. Metaphoric mappings in the sense of smell [A]. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. & G. J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C].29-45.
Indurkhya, B.1994. The thesis that all knowledge is metaphoric and meanings of metaphor [J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9 (1): 61-73.
Jackendoff, R.1983. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1992. Languages of the Mind [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. & D. Aaron.1991. Review of Lakoff & Turner, More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor [J]. Language 67 (2): 320-338.
Johnson. C.1997. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE [A]. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha & S. Wilcox (eds.). Cultural Typological and Psychological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.155-169.
Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M.1992. Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3 (4):345-366.
Johnson, M. & G. Lakoff.2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3):245-263.
Julius, D. & A. I. Basbaum.2001. Molecular mechanisms of nociception [J]. Nature 413 (6852):203-210.
Katz, D.1989. The World of Touch [M], trans. L. E. Krueger. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kempton, W.1981. The Folk Classification of Ceramics:A Study of Cognitive Prototypes [M]. New York:Academic Press.
King, B.1989. The Conceptual Structure of Emotional Experience in Chinese [D]. PhD Dissertation. Columbus:Ohio State University.
Kittay, E. F.1987. Metaphor:Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & E. Rakhilina.2006. "Some like it hot":on semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish [J]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59 (2):253-269.
Kovecses, Z.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Z.1988. The Language of Love [M]. Lewisburgh:Associated University Press.
Kovecses, Z.1990. Emotion Concepts [M]. New York:Springer.
Kovecses, Z.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Krantz, J. H.2006. Experiencing sensation and perception [OL]. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/sensation (accessed 12/05/2008).
Kreitzer, A.1997. Multiple levels of schematization:a study in the conceptualization of space [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4):291-325.
Kruger, L. (ed.). Pain and Touch (2nd edition) [C]. San Diego:Academic Press.
Labov, W.1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In C. J. Baily & R. Shuy (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English [C]. Washington D. C.:Georgetown University Press.340-373.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G.1988. Cognitive semantics [A]. In U. Eco, M. Santambrogio & P. Violi (eds.). Meaning and Mental Representations [C]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.119-154.
Lakoff, G.1990. The invariance hypothesis:Is abstract reason based on image schemas? [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39-74.
Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.202-251.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar (Volume Ⅰ) [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1988. The nature of grammatical valence [A]. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.91-125.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume II) [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1):107-151.
Laurence, S. & E. Margolis.1999. Concepts and cognitive science [A]. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds.). Concepts:Core Readings [C]. Cambridge:MIT Press.3-81.
Lehrer, A.1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lewis, D.1972. General semantics [A]. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.). Semantics of Natural Language [C]. Dordrecht:Reidel. 169-218.
Li, C. & S. A. Thompson.1981. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Lindner, S. J.1981. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP [D]. PhD Dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
Lukes, D.2008. Review of Verena Haser, metaphor, metonymy and experientialist philosophy:Challenging cognitive semantics [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2):313-324.
Lyons, J.1995. An Introduction to Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
MacLaury, R. E.1985. Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Malouf, R.2000. Verbal gerunds as mixed categories in head-driven phrase structure grammar [A]. In R. Borsley (ed.). The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories [C]. New York:Academic Press. 133-166.
Marx, W.1983. The meaning-confining function of the adjective [A]. In G. Rickheit & M. Bock (eds.). Psycholinguistic Studies in Language Processing [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.70-81.
Matsumoto, Y.1996. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2):183-226.
McCawley, J.1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English (Volume II) [M]. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
McCawley, J.1992. Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20 (2):211-246.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [Z/OL]. http://www.merriam-webster.com (accessed 05/01/2009).
Montagu, A.1986. Touching:The Human Significance of the Skin (3rd edition) [M]. New York:Harper & Row.
Murphy, G. L.1996. On metaphoric representation [J]. Cognition 60 (2): 173-204.
Murphy, G. L.1997. Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation [J]. Cognition 62 (1):99-108.
Murray, J. A. H., H. Bradley, W. A. Craigie & C. T. Onions.1989. Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) [Z], eds. J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Noren, K. & P. Linell.2007. Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts:An empirical substantiation [J]. Pragmatics 17 (3):387-416.
Ogden, C. K.1967. Opposition:A Linguistic and Psychological Analysis [M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards (eds.).1923. The Meaning of Meaning [C]. London:Routledge & Kegan.
Paradis, C.2000. Reinforcing adjectives:a cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization [A]. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (eds.). Generative Theory and Corpus Studies:Topics in English Linguistics [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.233-258.
Paradis, C.2001. Adjectives and boundedness [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1):47-65.
Paradis, C.2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes 15 (4):541-573.
Peters, I. & W. Peters.2000. The treatment of adjectives in SIMPLE: Theoretical observations [OL]. http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/non/lrec2000/pdf/366.pdf (accessed 08/12/08).
Plato.360 BC. Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett [OL]. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html (accessed 09/10/2008).
Popova, Y.2005. Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia [A]. In B. Hampe (ed.). From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.395-419.
Pustejovsky, J.1991. The generative lexicon [J]. Computational Linguistics 17 (4):409-441.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Putz, M. & R. Dirven (eds.).1996. The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London:Longman.
Rakova, M.2003. The Extent of the Literal:Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts [M]. New York:Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
Raskin, V. & S. Nirenburg.1995. Lexical semantics of adjectives:A micro theory of adjectival meaning [OL]. http://www.purdue.edu/-raskin/adjective.pdf(accessed 19/10/2008).
Radden, G.2000. How metonymic are metaphors? [A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and. Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.93-108.
Richards, I. A.1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, T.2001. Pragmatism, ideology and embodiment:William James and the philosophical foundations of cognitive linguistics [A]. In E. Sandikcioglu & R. Dirven (eds.). Language and Ideology:Cognitive Theoretical Approaches [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.49-81.
Rohrer, T.2005. Image schemata in the brain [A]. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (eds.). From Perception to Meaning:Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.165-196.
Rohrer, T.2007. Embodiment and experientialism [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. USA:Oxford University Press.25-47.
Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328-350.
Rosch, E. H.1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General 104 (3):192-233.
Rosch, E. H.1977. Human categorization [A]. In N. Warren (ed.). Studies in Cross-linguistic Psychology [C]. London:Academic Press.1-49.
Rosch, E. H.1978. Principles of categorization [A]. In B. Lloyd & E. Rosch (eds.). Cognition and Categorization [C]. Hillsdale:Erlbaum. 27-48.
Ross, J. R.1972. The category squish:Endstation Hauptwort [A]. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi & G. C. Phares (eds.). Papers of the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [C]. Chicago: University of Chicago.316-328.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. 109-132.
Saeed, J.1997. Semantics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Schiffman, H. R.1996. Sensation and Perception:An Integrated Approach (4th edition) [M]. New York:Wiley.
Seitz, J.2006. The neural, evolutionary, developmental, and bodily basis of metaphor [OL]. http://www.york.cuny.edu/-seitz/pubs.html (accessed 09/09/2007).
Shen, Y.1997. Cognitive constraints on poetic figures [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (1):33-71.
Shindo, M.2009. Semantic Extension, Subjectification, and Verbalization [M]. Lanham:University Press of America.
Siegel, M.1979. Measure adjectives in Montague grammar [A]. In S. Davis & M. Mithun (eds.). Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar [C]. Austin:University of Texas Press.223-262.
Sinha, C. & K. Jensen de Lopez.2000. Language, culture and embodiment of spatial cognition [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1-2): 17-41.
Sjostrom, S.1999. From vision to cognition:A study of metaphor and polysemy in Swedish [A]. In J. Allwood & P. Gardenfors (eds.). Cognitive Semantics:Meaning and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.67-85.
Solt, S.2009. The Semantics of Adjectives of Quantity [D]. PhD Dissertation. New York:City University of New York.
Stern, J.2000. Metaphor in Context [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Stibbe, A.1996. The metaphoric construction of illness in Chinese culture [J]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 7 (3-4):177-88.
Sutrop, U.1998. Basic temperature terms and subjective temperature scale [J]. Lexicology 4 (1):61-104.
Sutrop, U.1999. Temperature terms in the Baltic area [A]. In M. Erelt (ed.). Estonian:Typological Studies [C]. Tartu:Publications of the University of Tartu.185-203.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics:Metaphoric and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Szwedek, A.2000. Senses, perception and metaphors (of object and objectification) [A]. In S. Puppel & K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk. (eds.). Multis vocibus de lingua [C]. Poznan:Neophilological Department. 143-153.
Szwedek, A.2002. Objectification:From object perception to metaphor creation [A]. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics Today [C]. Berlin:Peter Lang.159-175.
Talmy, L.1977. Rubber-sheet cognition in language [A]. In W. Beach, S. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds.). Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.612-628.
Talmy, L.1983. How language structures space [A]. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application [C]. New York:Plenum Press.225-282.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and thought [J]. Cognitive Science 12(1):49-100.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Taylor, J.1992. Old problems:Adjectives in cognitive grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 3 (1):1-36.
Taylor, J.1989. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J.2002. Near synonyms as coextensive categories:'High'and 'tall'revisited [J]. Language Sciences 25 (3):263-284.
Thompson,.S. A.1998. A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation [A]. In A. Siewierska & J. J. Song (eds.). Case, Typology and Grammar [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.309-341.
Traugott, E. C. & R. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A.& V. Evans.2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks:the case of over [J]. Language 77 (4):724-765.
Ullmann, S.1959. The Principles of Semantics [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Ullmann, S.1962. Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London:Longman.
Vandeloise, C.1991. Spatial Prepositions:A Case Study from French [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C.1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 5 (2):157-184.
Verhagen, A.2006. Construal and perspectivisation [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Vogel, A.2004. Swedish Dimensional Adjectives [D]. PhD Dissertation. Stockholm:Stockholm University.
Weber, E. H.1978. The Sense of Touch [M], eds. and trans. H. E. Ross & D. J. Murray. London:Academic Press.
Wierzbicka, A.1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. Ann Arbor:Karoma.
Wierzbicka, A.1986. Metaphors linguists live by:Lakoff & Johnson contra Aristotle [J]. Papers in Linguistics 19 (2):287-313.
Williams, J. M.1976. Synaesthetic adjectives:A possible law of semantic change [J]. Language 52 (2):461-478.
Wittgenstein, L.1953. Philosophical Investigations [M], eds. G. H. Wright, R. Rhees & G. E. M. Anscombe, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Blackwell.
Yu, N.1995. Metaphoric expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese [J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (2):59-92.
Yu, N.1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor:A Perspective from Chinese [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yu, N.2003. Synesthetic metaphor:A cognitive perspective [J].Journal of Literary Semantics 32 (1):19-34.
Zlatev, J.1997. Situated Embodiment:Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning [M]. Stockholm:Stockholm University.
安汝磐、赵玉玲(编),2003,《新编汉语形容词词典》[Z]。北京：经济科学出版社
白解红,2000,语境与意义[J], 《外语与外语教学》(4)：21-24。
白解红,2006,从认知心理学的角度看语义和语法的关系[J],《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》(6)：99-103。
崔永华,1990,汉语形容词分类的现状和问题[J],《语言教学与研究》(3) ： 132-140。
傅婧,1954,副词跟形容词的界限问题[J],《中国语文》(11)：18-19。
郭锐,2001,汉语形容词的划界[J],《中国语言学报》(10)：17-33。
《汉典》(Z/OL),http://www.zdic.net(2008年6月20日读取)。
韩 凯 ,2003, 浅谈触觉[OL],http://www.cctv.com/program/bjjt/20031021.shtml(2007年10月20日读取)。
韩秀英,1993, 《后缀形容词例解》[M]。南京：江苏教育出版社。
汉语大字典编辑委员会(编),2006, 《汉语大字典》[Z]。武汉：湖北辞书出版社。
韩玉国,2001,现代汉语形容词的句法功能及再分类[J],《语言教学与研究》(2)：47-54。
贺阳,1996,性质形容词作状语情况的考察[J], 《语文研究》(1)：13-18。
胡德明,2003,儿童空间维度形容词发展顺序的理论解释[J],《世界汉语教学》 (3)：61-66。
胡明扬,2000,关于“名物化”问题[J],《华语教学与研究》(1)：29-35。
蓝纯,2003,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
黎锦熙,1924,《新著国语文法》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
李明,1996,AB式双音节形容词重叠式的考察[J],《语言教学与研究》(1)：73-82。
李泉,2005,单音节形容词原型性研究。博士学位论文[D]。北京：北京语言大学。
林书武,1998,“愤怒”的概念隐喻[J], 《外语与外语教学》(2)：9-13。
林正军,2004,从历时及认知的角度看“一词多义”现象。硕士学位论文[D]。长春：东北师范大学。
刘丹青,1988,汉藏语系重叠形式的分析模式[J],《语言研究》(1)：167-175。
刘家荣,1997,多义词Over及其语义链[J],《现代外语》(2)：65-69。
刘琦,2006,论形容词的非多义性：形容词在形名组合中的讨论。硕士学位论文[D]。杭州：浙江大学。
刘正光,2006, 《语言非范畴化：语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘正光,2007, 《隐喻的认知研究——理论与实践》[M]。湖南：湖南人民出版社。
陆俭明,1989,说量词形容词[J],《语言教学与研究》(3)：46-59。
陆一帆,1985, 《文艺心理学》[M]。南京：江苏文艺出版社。
吕叔湘,1942, 《中国文法要略》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1979, 《汉语语法分析问题》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1990,形容词使用情况的一个考察[A],载吕叔湘(编),《吕叔湘文集》(第二卷)[C]。北京：商务印书馆。221-229。
沐莘,1986,试谈英汉多义词的比较[J], 《外国语》(6)：40-42。
彭懿、白解红,2007,汉英“愤怒”情感新词的认知对比研究[J], 《外国语》 (6)： 32-38。
彭懿、白解红,2008,通感认知新论[J], 《外语与外语教学》(1)：14-]7。
彭懿、白解红,2010,形容词多义问题的识解差异探究[J],《外语与外语教学》 (3)：12-15。
钱钟书,1962,通感[J], 《文学评论》(1)：13-17。
秦衍,2004,有关日语感觉形容词的语义转换——以味觉形容词为中心。硕士学位论文[D]。上海：上海外国语大学。
石毓智,1991,现代汉语的肯定性形容词[J], 《中国语文》 (3)：167-174。
石毓智,1996,形容词的有无标记用法与疑问句式的交错关系[J],《汉语学习》 (5)：10-15。
石毓智,2000,《语法的认知语义基础》[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
石毓智,2004,《汉语研究的类型学视野》[M]。南昌：江西教育出版社。
石毓智,2006,《语法的概念基础》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
石毓智,2007,语言假设中的证据问题[J],《语言科学》(4)：39-51。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谭景春,1998,名形词类转变的语义基础及相关问题[J],《中国语文》 (5)：368-377。
唐厚广、车竞,1985,形容词接动态助词动词化初探[J],《锦州师院学报》(2)：92-97,99。
王力,1943, 《中国现代语法》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
王启龙,2003, 《现代汉语形容词计量研究》[M]。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
汪少华,2002,通感·联想·认知[J], 《现代外语》(2)：187-194。
王苏,1987, 《中国大百科全书：普通心理学》[Z],北京：中国大百科全书出版社
王雁,2002, 《普通心理学》[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
王寅,2002,认知语言学的哲学基础：体验哲学[J],《外语教学与研究》 (2)：82-89。
王寅,体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J], 《哲学动态》(7)：24-30。
王寅,2004,语义外在论与语义内在论——认知语言学与TG语法在内在论上的分歧[A]。载束定芳(编), 《语言的认知研究：认知语言学论文精选》[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。88-102。
王寅,2005, 《认知语法概论》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社
王寅,2007,汉语“动名构造”与英语"VN构造”的对比——一项基于语料库“吃/eat构造”的对比研究[J]。 《外语教学》(2)：1-6。
邢福义,1965,谈“数量结构+形容词”[J],《中国语文》(1)：34-36。
邢福义,1990, 《形容词短语》[M]。北京：人民教育出版社。
杨波、张辉,2007,跨感官感知与通感形容词研究[J], 《外语教学》(1)：16-21。
杨宽仁,1985,论非定形容词[J], 《语言研究》(2)：129-141。
杨仕章,1998,通感与俄语感觉形容词的词义演变[J], 《外语学刊》(2)：82-85。
杨治良,1988, 《基础实验心理学》[M]。兰州：甘肃人民出版社
俞敏,1957, 《名词、动词、形容词》[M]。上海：上海教育出版社。
张伯江,1994,性质形容词的范围和层次[R]。第八次现代汉语语法讨论会论文,江苏苏州,1994年10月。
张国宪,1995,论双价形容词[A], 《现代汉语配价语法研究》[M]。北京：北京大学出版社
张国宪,1996,形容词的计量[J], 《世界汉语教学》(4)：35-44。
张辉,2000,汉英情感概念形成和表达的对比研究[J],《外国语》(5)：39-45。
张辉,2004,认知语义学述评[A]。载束定芳(编), 《语言的认知研究：认知语言学论文精选》[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社73-87。
张辉、宋伟,2004,ERP与语言研究[J], 《外语电化教学》(6)38-68。
张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨：以“脸、面”为例[J],《外国语》(4)：54-58。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络：转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》(1)：40-43。
张建理,2007,英语形—名结构的动态识解研究[J],《外语教学与研究》(2)： 97-103。
张旺熹,1998,“动+得+形”结构的变体形式[R]。第六届国际汉语教学讨论会论文,德国汉诺威,1998年8月。
张耀翔,1987, 《感觉心理》[M]。北京：工人出版社
赵彦春,2003, 《认知词典学探索》[M]。上海：上海外语教学出版社。
赵艳芳,2000, 《认知语言学概论》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版 社。
赵元任,1968/1980,《中国话的文法》(A Grammar of Spoken Chinese)[M],丁邦新译。香港：香港中文大学出版社
赵之昂,2005,肤觉经验与审美意识。博士学位论文[D]。济南：山东师范大学。
郑怀德、孟庆海(编),2003, 《汉语形容词用法词典》[z]。北京：商务印书馆。
中国大百科全书编辑委员会(编),1987, 《中国大百科全书》[z]。北京：中国大百科全书出版社。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编),2005, 《现代汉语词典》[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱德熙,1956,现代汉语形容词研究[J],《语言研究》(1)：83-111。
朱德熙,1982, 《语法讲义》[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱光潜,1987, 《朱光潜全集》[M]。合肥：安徽教育出版社。