人体词语语义研究
|
摘要
语言是“词的语言”,词决定着其它语言单位,而词的核心是词义,唯有对词义进行研究才可能掌握词。众多词类中,本研究择取人体词语这一人类认知世界的最基本的概念之首为语义的载体,对其语义体系进行研究,试图通过人体词语语义这一窗口,达到揭示整个语言词语体系的语义特征及其语义建构规律,从而补充语义学相关理论,帮助解释词义现象的目的。
在综合运用词汇学、语义学、认知语言学、心理学等相关学科的理论和研究成果的基础上,本研究主要采用对比研究法、描写与解释相结合法、点面结合法、定性和定量相结合的研究方法对人体词语的语义进行多角度,多层面的探讨。我们先从宏观层面通过与其它普通名词相比较的方法考察整个人体词语体系的语义特征,之后考虑到从整体视角批量宏观考察语义可能存在的难以尽至的缺憾性,我们又从微观层面选取身体词语“手”和头部词语“眼”详尽分析了它们的语义体系,以促进人体词语词义的系统性研究。接着,为推进研究的系统性,不局限于某一种语言,我们从跨语视角对比考察英汉人体词语语义体系。最后,运用解释法对人体词语语义体系建构进行深入细致地解析。通过不同视角的分析考察,我们得到了不同的发现,挖掘了一些深层的规律。这些发现及规律,亦即本研究的主要结论,具体如下:
①人体词语的语义除了跟其它普通名词的语义一样具有客观性、历时变化性、共时多义性和文化性的特征之外,还具有隐喻系统性和转喻性两个方面的独具个性特征。人体词语词义的隐喻系统性包括针对外界事物的整体的系统隐喻,和针对人体部位的部分的系统隐喻这两方面的系统隐喻。人体词语词义的转喻性包括人体词语转指人、人体词语转指长度单位、人体词语转指人体相应部位的特征或功能、人体词语转指人体部位相应的动作行为四个方面的转喻。
②人体词语的转义分别由它的物理特征和功能特征引申而来,但两方面特征的引申不是均衡的,具体词语有所偏重,“手”偏重功能特征,“眼”偏重物理的形貌特征。这种偏重影响词语转义所跨涉的语义范畴。思想感情范畴、人体构件范畴、时间范畴和性质范畴四个语义范畴是“手”和“眼”转义的缺省语义范畴,这跟它们是外在的不可或缺的物理实体、并作为一种行事工具(持物做事工具和视物工具)被认知,以及所处位置不显著有关。“手”转义具有极强的词义功能取象倾向,显示出单一功能取象倾向特征,这是由人们对“手”的工具功能的认知心理定式造成的。“眼”转义具有词义形貌取象倾向性,但也有一定量的功能取象特征引申而来的转义,这是因为眼睛作为一种重要的“视觉器官”也引起认知主体的关注。
③同称词并存是词的过度多义造成的结果。“眼”和“目”由于取象本体的同一性,都由形貌特征和功能特征发展词义,且转义的语义范畴分布也较为相似。但二者又有着区别于对方的角色分工即词义发展方向,否则语言体系就会无情地选择将其中一个遗弃。
④英汉人体词语语义在转义数量和转义内容两个方面存在着共性特征和个性特征。转义数量方面存在的共性特征为:人体词语三个次类的转义数量呈现出由头部词语到身体词语再到内脏词语依次递减的规律;内脏词语“心”、“heart”,身体词语“体”和“back”的高转义量有其自身的认知特性和认知优势。个性特征为:英语人体词语转义数量、名转动数量高于汉语,但汉语人体词语具有较多的名转量优势。转义内容方面存在的共性特征为:位置隐喻义跟人体词语三个次类的转义数量规律一样,也呈现出由头部词语到身体词语再到内脏词语依次递降的规律;形貌隐喻义中,头部词语较多产生形貌隐喻义,内脏词语较难形成形貌隐喻义;位置隐喻义与形貌隐喻义还形成相对立的特点,形貌特征突出的人体部位,相应的词语形貌义很多,位置义很少或基本不产生位置义,反之亦然。功能义的数量很多,相对位置特征不明显没有产生位置隐喻义的部位或器官,很多都因其具有较突出的功能特征,对应的词语产生较多的功能义。大多数内脏词语都产生较多的思维情感等方面的功能义。个性特征为:英语人体词语具有形貌隐喻义和具有功能义的词语,以及词均形貌隐喻义和词均功能义多于汉语;汉语人体词语产生位置义的词语以及词均位置义略多于英语;受文化因素的影响,英汉人体词语的形貌义、位置义和功能义内容不尽相同。
⑤人体词语语义体系之所以能得以建构有其两方面的基础:经验基础和语义范畴跨界基础。经验基础包括身体经验和文化模式,它们构成意义的基础。身体经验和文化模式内化为认知主体的一种相对定型的心智结构,即认知框架,也构成意义建构的基础。语义范畴跨界有主客观两方面的基础:客观上的人物同类,和主观上认知主体的求新心理。人体词语语义建构的机制是:以相似性和邻近性为本,以认知主体对潜在的相似性和邻近性进行认知突显为助推器,以隐喻和转喻两种认知模式为途经,通过几种形式的跨域投射或域内转移而实现人体词语新的词义建构。
Language is the language of words, upon which other units are based. The core of the language is the meaning. Without the study on the lexical meaning, one cannot grasp a word. This research focuses on the meaning system of body terms, regarded as the most basic concept for human cognition to the world, so as to discover the semantic features and their construction rules of the whole language lexical system, as well as to contribute supplements to semantics, and to offer interpretation for lexical meaning.
Based on the theories and research results of lexicology, semantics, cognitive linguistics and psychology, this research explores the meaning system of body terms from different perspectives and levels by adopting the following methods: comparison, combination of description and explanation, combination of aspects and full-scale analyses, combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. Firstly, from the macro perspective we examine the semantic features of the whole body terms by making comparison with other nouns. Secondly, from the micro perspective we make detailed analyses of the meaning systems of two words“Shou”(“Hand”) and“Yan”(“eye”), in order to better the research in systematization. Thirdly, from the cross-language perspective, we make a comparative study on the Chinese and English body terms’meaning systems, again for the systematization of our research. Finally, we supply a meticulous interpretation for the construction of the body terms’meaning system. From different perspectives, we get different findings and rules, which constitute the verdicts of our research, and the following are some of them.
1,Apart from the objectivity, variability, polysemy and cultural specificity, the semantic features shared by body terms and other nouns, body terms owns its unique semantic features, viz systematically metaphorical and metonymical properties. The systematically metaphorical property embodies the body-part related metaphors built systematically by focusing on an outside object, and by foculizing a particular body part. The Metonymical property manifests itself in the extension of the nominatum of body terms to the person, to the unit of measurement, to the physical features or functions possessed by body parts, and to the action of body parts.
2,The transferred meanings of body terms are extensions from the physical and functional features of body parts, but the two kinds of extensions are not balanced. For different terms it varies accordingly.“Hand”lays particular stress on the functional features, while“Eye”on the other. This kind of tendency also influences the semantic categories of the transferred meanings. Four semantic categories, namely thought-emotion category, body component category, time category, and attribute category, are the defaulters for transferred meanings of both words (“Hand”and“Eye”). This, from our point of view, can be thought as a result of their being the essential exterior body parts, of their being apperceived as tools for actions, and of being their perceptual unsalience in positions. The transferred meanings of“Hand”have a strong tendency of semantic image exaction from its functions. A sole semantic image exaction from its functions can be seen. This is brought about by people’s cognitive psychology of considering the hand being as a prototype of the tool. The transferred meanings of“Eye”have a tendency of semantic image exaction from its appearance. Besides, there still exist some transferred meanings from its functions. This is because of the eye, as an important visual organ, also coming into people’s notice.
3,The phenomenon of different appellations for a particular body part is caused by historically excessive polysemy of one word. Based on the same organ, both“Yan”and“Mu”develop transferred meanings from the eye’s appearance and functions, and the semantic categories of their transferred meanings occupied are much similar to each other. However, each of the two words has its own role in developing transferred meanings, otherwise one of them will be dropped out of the language system.
4,For Chinese and English body terms, the quantities and contents of their transferred meanings share some common traits on the one hand, and on the other hand they have their own characteristics.
The common traits of the quantities of their transferred meanings include the following aspects: the quantities of the transferred meanings of body terms decrease successively from the terms of the head to the terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera; Owing to their cognitive properties and cognitive superiority,“Xin”and“Heart”, members of the terms of the viscera, and“Ti”and“Back”, members of the terms of the trunk, possess high quantities of transferred meanings. The characteristics of the quantities of their transferred meanings are: there are more transferred meanings in English, and also more in English which have shifted into verbs; by contrast, there are more transferred meanings in Chinese which have changed into classifiers.
The common traits of the contents of their transferred meanings involve the following:the quantities of the metaphorical meanings from the positions of body parts lower successively from the terms of the head to the terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera;among the metaphorical meanings from the appearances of body parts, many are developed from the terms of the head,while very few from the terms of the viscera; it also forms an opposite feature between the metaphorical meanings from the positions and those from the appearances, that is, body parts with salient appearances bring their corresponding terms lots of metaphorical meanings from the appearances, while a few or even none from the positions, and vice versa; there exist a great deal of meanings from the functions of body parts, thanking for the contribution of the terms whose corresponding body parts with prominent functions, and also for the generosity of the terms of the viscera in meaning offering in thought and emotion. The characteristics of the contents of their transferred meanings are: more English terms have the metaphorical meanings from the appearances and also more from the positions, and the averages, i.e. the quantities per term, of these two kinds of meanings in English are also higher than those in Chinese; while slightly more Chinese terms possess the metaphorical meanings from the functions, and also the average is a little bit higher; influenced by the cultural factors, the meanings from the appearances, from the positions, and from the functions of English body terms differ from those of Chinese body terms in some degree.
5,For the construction of the meaning systems of body terms there exist two sorts of bases: one the experiential bases, and the other the bases for the semantic category crossing. The experiential bases consist of the bodily experiences and the cultural models, forming a relatively fixed mental structure of the cognitive subject called as the cognitive frame. The three factors (the bodily experiences, the cultural models, and the cognitive frame) are fundamental for meaning construction. The bases for the semantic category crossing include two: one, objectively, human and things being of a kind, and the other, subjectively, the cognitive subject’s striving- for-novelty psychology. The mechanism of the construction of the meaning systems of body terms is disinterred detailed as what described below: the similarity and the contiguity act as the cornerstone, the cognitive salience on the potential similarity and the contiguity perform as the promoter, and metaphor and metonymy behave as the two paths by mapping between domains in metaphor or transferring in one domain in metonymy separately via several methods, and finally the new meanings, thereby get constructed.
在综合运用词汇学、语义学、认知语言学、心理学等相关学科的理论和研究成果的基础上,本研究主要采用对比研究法、描写与解释相结合法、点面结合法、定性和定量相结合的研究方法对人体词语的语义进行多角度,多层面的探讨。我们先从宏观层面通过与其它普通名词相比较的方法考察整个人体词语体系的语义特征,之后考虑到从整体视角批量宏观考察语义可能存在的难以尽至的缺憾性,我们又从微观层面选取身体词语“手”和头部词语“眼”详尽分析了它们的语义体系,以促进人体词语词义的系统性研究。接着,为推进研究的系统性,不局限于某一种语言,我们从跨语视角对比考察英汉人体词语语义体系。最后,运用解释法对人体词语语义体系建构进行深入细致地解析。通过不同视角的分析考察,我们得到了不同的发现,挖掘了一些深层的规律。这些发现及规律,亦即本研究的主要结论,具体如下:
①人体词语的语义除了跟其它普通名词的语义一样具有客观性、历时变化性、共时多义性和文化性的特征之外,还具有隐喻系统性和转喻性两个方面的独具个性特征。人体词语词义的隐喻系统性包括针对外界事物的整体的系统隐喻,和针对人体部位的部分的系统隐喻这两方面的系统隐喻。人体词语词义的转喻性包括人体词语转指人、人体词语转指长度单位、人体词语转指人体相应部位的特征或功能、人体词语转指人体部位相应的动作行为四个方面的转喻。
②人体词语的转义分别由它的物理特征和功能特征引申而来,但两方面特征的引申不是均衡的,具体词语有所偏重,“手”偏重功能特征,“眼”偏重物理的形貌特征。这种偏重影响词语转义所跨涉的语义范畴。思想感情范畴、人体构件范畴、时间范畴和性质范畴四个语义范畴是“手”和“眼”转义的缺省语义范畴,这跟它们是外在的不可或缺的物理实体、并作为一种行事工具(持物做事工具和视物工具)被认知,以及所处位置不显著有关。“手”转义具有极强的词义功能取象倾向,显示出单一功能取象倾向特征,这是由人们对“手”的工具功能的认知心理定式造成的。“眼”转义具有词义形貌取象倾向性,但也有一定量的功能取象特征引申而来的转义,这是因为眼睛作为一种重要的“视觉器官”也引起认知主体的关注。
③同称词并存是词的过度多义造成的结果。“眼”和“目”由于取象本体的同一性,都由形貌特征和功能特征发展词义,且转义的语义范畴分布也较为相似。但二者又有着区别于对方的角色分工即词义发展方向,否则语言体系就会无情地选择将其中一个遗弃。
④英汉人体词语语义在转义数量和转义内容两个方面存在着共性特征和个性特征。转义数量方面存在的共性特征为:人体词语三个次类的转义数量呈现出由头部词语到身体词语再到内脏词语依次递减的规律;内脏词语“心”、“heart”,身体词语“体”和“back”的高转义量有其自身的认知特性和认知优势。个性特征为:英语人体词语转义数量、名转动数量高于汉语,但汉语人体词语具有较多的名转量优势。转义内容方面存在的共性特征为:位置隐喻义跟人体词语三个次类的转义数量规律一样,也呈现出由头部词语到身体词语再到内脏词语依次递降的规律;形貌隐喻义中,头部词语较多产生形貌隐喻义,内脏词语较难形成形貌隐喻义;位置隐喻义与形貌隐喻义还形成相对立的特点,形貌特征突出的人体部位,相应的词语形貌义很多,位置义很少或基本不产生位置义,反之亦然。功能义的数量很多,相对位置特征不明显没有产生位置隐喻义的部位或器官,很多都因其具有较突出的功能特征,对应的词语产生较多的功能义。大多数内脏词语都产生较多的思维情感等方面的功能义。个性特征为:英语人体词语具有形貌隐喻义和具有功能义的词语,以及词均形貌隐喻义和词均功能义多于汉语;汉语人体词语产生位置义的词语以及词均位置义略多于英语;受文化因素的影响,英汉人体词语的形貌义、位置义和功能义内容不尽相同。
⑤人体词语语义体系之所以能得以建构有其两方面的基础:经验基础和语义范畴跨界基础。经验基础包括身体经验和文化模式,它们构成意义的基础。身体经验和文化模式内化为认知主体的一种相对定型的心智结构,即认知框架,也构成意义建构的基础。语义范畴跨界有主客观两方面的基础:客观上的人物同类,和主观上认知主体的求新心理。人体词语语义建构的机制是:以相似性和邻近性为本,以认知主体对潜在的相似性和邻近性进行认知突显为助推器,以隐喻和转喻两种认知模式为途经,通过几种形式的跨域投射或域内转移而实现人体词语新的词义建构。
Language is the language of words, upon which other units are based. The core of the language is the meaning. Without the study on the lexical meaning, one cannot grasp a word. This research focuses on the meaning system of body terms, regarded as the most basic concept for human cognition to the world, so as to discover the semantic features and their construction rules of the whole language lexical system, as well as to contribute supplements to semantics, and to offer interpretation for lexical meaning.
Based on the theories and research results of lexicology, semantics, cognitive linguistics and psychology, this research explores the meaning system of body terms from different perspectives and levels by adopting the following methods: comparison, combination of description and explanation, combination of aspects and full-scale analyses, combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. Firstly, from the macro perspective we examine the semantic features of the whole body terms by making comparison with other nouns. Secondly, from the micro perspective we make detailed analyses of the meaning systems of two words“Shou”(“Hand”) and“Yan”(“eye”), in order to better the research in systematization. Thirdly, from the cross-language perspective, we make a comparative study on the Chinese and English body terms’meaning systems, again for the systematization of our research. Finally, we supply a meticulous interpretation for the construction of the body terms’meaning system. From different perspectives, we get different findings and rules, which constitute the verdicts of our research, and the following are some of them.
1,Apart from the objectivity, variability, polysemy and cultural specificity, the semantic features shared by body terms and other nouns, body terms owns its unique semantic features, viz systematically metaphorical and metonymical properties. The systematically metaphorical property embodies the body-part related metaphors built systematically by focusing on an outside object, and by foculizing a particular body part. The Metonymical property manifests itself in the extension of the nominatum of body terms to the person, to the unit of measurement, to the physical features or functions possessed by body parts, and to the action of body parts.
2,The transferred meanings of body terms are extensions from the physical and functional features of body parts, but the two kinds of extensions are not balanced. For different terms it varies accordingly.“Hand”lays particular stress on the functional features, while“Eye”on the other. This kind of tendency also influences the semantic categories of the transferred meanings. Four semantic categories, namely thought-emotion category, body component category, time category, and attribute category, are the defaulters for transferred meanings of both words (“Hand”and“Eye”). This, from our point of view, can be thought as a result of their being the essential exterior body parts, of their being apperceived as tools for actions, and of being their perceptual unsalience in positions. The transferred meanings of“Hand”have a strong tendency of semantic image exaction from its functions. A sole semantic image exaction from its functions can be seen. This is brought about by people’s cognitive psychology of considering the hand being as a prototype of the tool. The transferred meanings of“Eye”have a tendency of semantic image exaction from its appearance. Besides, there still exist some transferred meanings from its functions. This is because of the eye, as an important visual organ, also coming into people’s notice.
3,The phenomenon of different appellations for a particular body part is caused by historically excessive polysemy of one word. Based on the same organ, both“Yan”and“Mu”develop transferred meanings from the eye’s appearance and functions, and the semantic categories of their transferred meanings occupied are much similar to each other. However, each of the two words has its own role in developing transferred meanings, otherwise one of them will be dropped out of the language system.
4,For Chinese and English body terms, the quantities and contents of their transferred meanings share some common traits on the one hand, and on the other hand they have their own characteristics.
The common traits of the quantities of their transferred meanings include the following aspects: the quantities of the transferred meanings of body terms decrease successively from the terms of the head to the terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera; Owing to their cognitive properties and cognitive superiority,“Xin”and“Heart”, members of the terms of the viscera, and“Ti”and“Back”, members of the terms of the trunk, possess high quantities of transferred meanings. The characteristics of the quantities of their transferred meanings are: there are more transferred meanings in English, and also more in English which have shifted into verbs; by contrast, there are more transferred meanings in Chinese which have changed into classifiers.
The common traits of the contents of their transferred meanings involve the following:the quantities of the metaphorical meanings from the positions of body parts lower successively from the terms of the head to the terms of the trunk, and then to those of the viscera;among the metaphorical meanings from the appearances of body parts, many are developed from the terms of the head,while very few from the terms of the viscera; it also forms an opposite feature between the metaphorical meanings from the positions and those from the appearances, that is, body parts with salient appearances bring their corresponding terms lots of metaphorical meanings from the appearances, while a few or even none from the positions, and vice versa; there exist a great deal of meanings from the functions of body parts, thanking for the contribution of the terms whose corresponding body parts with prominent functions, and also for the generosity of the terms of the viscera in meaning offering in thought and emotion. The characteristics of the contents of their transferred meanings are: more English terms have the metaphorical meanings from the appearances and also more from the positions, and the averages, i.e. the quantities per term, of these two kinds of meanings in English are also higher than those in Chinese; while slightly more Chinese terms possess the metaphorical meanings from the functions, and also the average is a little bit higher; influenced by the cultural factors, the meanings from the appearances, from the positions, and from the functions of English body terms differ from those of Chinese body terms in some degree.
5,For the construction of the meaning systems of body terms there exist two sorts of bases: one the experiential bases, and the other the bases for the semantic category crossing. The experiential bases consist of the bodily experiences and the cultural models, forming a relatively fixed mental structure of the cognitive subject called as the cognitive frame. The three factors (the bodily experiences, the cultural models, and the cognitive frame) are fundamental for meaning construction. The bases for the semantic category crossing include two: one, objectively, human and things being of a kind, and the other, subjectively, the cognitive subject’s striving- for-novelty psychology. The mechanism of the construction of the meaning systems of body terms is disinterred detailed as what described below: the similarity and the contiguity act as the cornerstone, the cognitive salience on the potential similarity and the contiguity perform as the promoter, and metaphor and metonymy behave as the two paths by mapping between domains in metaphor or transferring in one domain in metonymy separately via several methods, and finally the new meanings, thereby get constructed.
引文
Daugherty, P. S. 1997. Body, Mind and Metaphor: the Worldview of Yoruk Women of the Central Taurus Mountains of Turkey[D]. PH. D. Dissertation. Unversity of Pennsylvania.
Goosens, L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action[A]. In Goossens, L. et. al. (eds.) By Word of Mouth. Metaphor and Metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective[C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamings.
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive Foundation of Grammar[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kansa, Mette. 2002. Body-part Related Metaphors in Thai and English[D]. PH. D. Dissertation. Ball State University.
Landa, A. 1996. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish[A]. RLA. Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Concepcion (Chile)[C], 34: 129-39.
Matisoff, J. A. 1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman[M]. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Inc.
Matisoff, J. A. 1986. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: An Essay in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations[A]. C. L. A. O. [C], 15(1): 5-57.
Oey, M. E. 1990. Phycho-collocations in Malay: A South-east Areal Feature[A]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area[C], 13(1): 141-158.
Rubal, E. R. 1994. Metaphors of the Body[D]. M. A. Thesis. Califania State University. Sakuragi, Toshiyuki and Judith W. Fuller. 2003. Body-Part Metaphors: A Cross-Cultural Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese[A]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research[C], 32(4): 381-395.
Suzuki, T. 1984. Words in Context: A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture[M].New York: Condansha International.
Yu, Ning. 2000. Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English[A]. Metaphor and Symbol[C], 15(3): 159-175.
Yu, Ning. 2003. Metaphor, Body, and Culture: The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage[A]. Metaphor and Symbol[C], 18(1), 13–31.
边立红,2003,从语义对应角度看汉语“心”的翻译[J],《哈尔滨学院学报》第6期。
程东岳,2007,“脸”的隐喻与转喻———基于“脸”的汉英语料对比研究[J],《华东交通大学学报》第3期。
储泽祥,1996,“满+N”与“全+N”朋[J],《中国语文》第5期。
董志翘,1985,“脚”有“足”义始于何时[J],《中国语文》第5期。
范利、聂春梅,2001,从认知语言学看名词临时作量词的语义演变规律[J],《湖南第一师范学报》第1期。
范淑云,2002,汉语中与人体部位相关语词的隐喻研究[D],南京师范大学硕士学位论文。
高明乐、朱文俊,2005,汉语“手”和英语“hand”的领域转移比较[J],《外语研究》第1期。
高晓荣,2006,从认知角度看人体隐喻[D],河北师范大学硕士学位论文。
郭芳睿,2007,俄语“人体成语”的认知语义分析[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
侯玲文,2001,“心”义文化探索[J],《汉语学习》第3期。
胡纯,2004,人体词的认知研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
黄凤,2006,人体隐喻的认知研究[D],四川大学硕士学位论文。
黄梅,2005,从认知角度看hand和Shou的语义扩展[D],北京语言大学硕士学位论文。
黄运亭,1997,英汉人体器官名词名转动比较研究[J],《华南理工大学学报》S2。
姜光辉,1994,汉语成语中的表情语言——成语中的人体语言研究之二[J],《北华大学学报》(社会科学版)第2期。
孔光,2004,从空间合成理论看身体名词的隐喻认知[J],《外语教学》第1期。
李竞,2007,“手”词语及其文化内容研究[D],内蒙古大学硕士学位论文。
李春琳,2004,多义词意义范畴的概念化—EYE的个案研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
李树新,2004,人体词语的认知模式与语义类推[J],《汉字文化》第4期。
李文莉,2007,人体隐喻系统研究[D],华东师范大学硕士学位论文。
廖艳平,2007,英汉人体词“head(头)”的隐喻研究[J],《现代语文》(语言研究版)第1期。
刘茁,2007,英语人体成语的隐喻性[J],《深圳大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第6期。
刘二林,2005,论英汉人体器官名词的动词用法[J],《中国科技翻译》第1期。
刘劼生，2000,表示事件的“数+N”结构[J],《世界汉语教学》第1期。
卢水林,2006,多义词的认知语义学研究[D],华中师范大学硕士学位论文。
卢卫中,2003,人体隐喻化的认知特点[J],《外语教学》第6期。
吕传峰,2006,“嘴”的词义演变及其与“口”的历时更替[J],《语言研究》第1期。
孟娜,2007,汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
齐振海、覃修贵,2003,论心的隐喻———基于英、汉语料库的对比研究[J],《外语研究》第3期。
齐振海、覃修贵,2004,“心”隐喻词语的范畴化研究[J],《外语研究》第6期。
齐振海、王义娜,2007,“心”词语的认知框架[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
钱进,1996,说“脚”构词系列及其文化内涵[J],《语文学刊》第4期。
邵健,2005,身体词的隐喻研究——以汉语“手”类词为例[J],《杭州师范学院学报》第5期。
盛春媛,2004,从认知角度看英汉常规隐喻及体喻[D],中国海洋大学硕士学位论文。
舒化龙,1983,汉语发展史略[M],呼和浩特:内蒙古教育出版社。
唐亚维,2005,英汉人体隐喻对比研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
田旭,2005,英汉人体隐喻化对比研究[D],哈尔滨工程大学硕士学位论文。
田灵枝,2007,人体部位作为源范畴的隐喻构词[J],《安阳工学院学报》第2期。
万红梅,2005,现代俄语中人体词隐喻化的认知分析[D],苏州大学硕士学位论文。
汪维辉,2000,东汉-隋常用词演变研究[M],南京:南京大学出版社。
王力,1980,汉语史稿(一卷本)[M],北京:中华书局。
王敏,2004,论Hand词义演变的认知动因——基于圣经的语料分析[J],《绍兴文理学院学报》第5期。
王群,2005,“手”隐喻的认知性分析[D],华北电力大学硕士学位论文。
王艳,2006,多义现象的认知研究:“心”的个案研究[D],哈尔滨工业大学硕士学位论文。
王宝平,2005,中日身体部位惯用语的比较[J],《日语学习与研究》第2期。
王彩丽,2002,通过名词性人体隐喻透析人的认知过程[J],《山东外语教学》第4期。
王丽莉,2007,关于“手”多义性的中日对比研究[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
王荔俪,2007,一词多义英汉异同对比——以“手”为例[J],《连云港师范高等专科学校学报》第3期。
王群、齐振海,2005,“手”词语的结构化分析[J],《华北电力大学学报》(社会科学版)第1期。
王文斌,2001,论汉语“心”的空间隐喻的结构化[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
王迎春,2005,试论汉语中表人体部位词的隐喻现象[J],《语文学刊》第9期。
吴金华,1986,“脚”有“足”义始于汉末[J],《中国语文》第4期。
向二兰,2007,“脸”的隐喻意义探源[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
肖灵,2007,人体隐喻的认知分析[J],《赣南师范学院学报》第1期。
许晋,2004,人体词语及其文化内涵分析[D],内蒙古大学硕士学位论文。
严爽,2006,英语“hand”和汉语“手”之一词多义对比[J],《浙江科技学院学报》第4期。
杨德龙、杨小洪,2005,汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J],《杭州师范学院学报》(社会科学版)第3期。
叶鸣,2004,汉英概念隐喻对比[D],黑龙江大学硕士学位论文。
余红卫,2006,隐喻:眼睛通向心智的桥梁——基于汉、英语料的跨文化研究[D],广西师范大学硕士学位论文。
张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨:以“脸、面”为例[J],《外国语》(上海外国语大学学报)第4期。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络:转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》第1期。
张建理,2006,英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第3期。
张荆萍,2004,隐喻在汉语新词义产生中的生成机制[J],《宁波广播电视大学学报》第4期。
赵倩,2007,汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D],北京语言大学博士学位论文。
赵伟礼,1997,英汉体语词对比从人体习语的文化意义谈起[J],《华南理工大学学报》S2。
赵伟礼,1999,英汉“动物词十器官词”结构对比与翻译[J],《四川外语学院学报》第2期。
赵永新,1993,反映人体器官的词语及其文化因素[J],《语言文字应用》第2期。
[泰国]文雅丽,2004,人体头部同称器官词研究[D],北京语言大学硕士学位论文。
Aitchison, J. 1999. Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edition[M]. London: Hodder Headline.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetics[M]. NewYork: The Modern Library.
Barcelona, A. 2003. Introduction. The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy[A]. In Barcelona, Antonio (eds). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Grossroads[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blank, A. 1999. Co-presence and Succession: A Cognitive Typology of Metonymy[A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther& G. Radden (Eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. 1975. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning[A]. In C. Cogen et al (eds). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame Semantics[C]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantica, 6/2: 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J. & B. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The Case of‘Crawl’[A]. In Raven, Y. & C. Leacock (eds). Polysemy[C]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, J. 1982. Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis[A]. in R. J. Jarvellaand W. Klein (eds). Speech, Place and Action[C]. New York∶Wiley.
Fromkin, V. & R. Rodman. 1988. An Introduction to Language[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4:223-272.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of the Mind[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goosens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Actions[A]. In Goossens, L. et. al (eds). By Word of Mouth[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamings Publishing Company.
Goossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Actions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1-3: 323-340.
Hallidy, M. A. K. & R. Husan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria: Deakin University.
Jackendoff, R. S. 1985. Multiple Subcategorization and the Theta-criterion: the Case of Climb[J]. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory, 3: 271-95.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics[A]. In T. A. Sebeok (eds). Style in Language[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jespersen, O. 1985. Language, its Nature, Development and Origin[M]. London: George Allen & Unwin, 57.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kapp, E. 1877. Grundlinien einer Philosophic: der Technik. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Cultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten[M]. Braunsehweig.
Katz, J. & J. Fodor. 1963. The Structure of a Semantic Theory[J]. Language, 39. Katz, J. 1972. Semantic Theory[M]. New York: Harper & Row.
Koch, P. 1999. Frame and Contiguity: on the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.
Kovecses, Z. 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurath, Hans. 1921. The Semantic Sources of the Words for the Emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic Languages[M], Menasha (Wisc.): Banta.
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: George town University Press, 340-373.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago 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: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar vol.Ⅰ: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford[M]. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar vol.Ⅱ: Descriptive Application. Stanford[M]. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W.1993. Referenence-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4.
Lyons,J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malmgren, Sven-Goran. 1988. On Regular Polysemy in Swedish, in Gavare, R. & M. Gellerstam (eds.). Studies in Computer-aided Lexicology[C]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Interntional.
Minsky, M. A. 1975. Framework for Representing Knowledge[A]. in Winston P. H. (eds.). The Psychology of Computer Vision[C]. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ortony, A. 1993. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, H. E. 1964. A Grammatical Dictionary of English Words[M]. London: Longman.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & G. Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pomerantz, J. P. et al. 1977. Perception of Wholes and Their Component Parts: Some Configural Superiority Effects[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3.
Quinn, N. & D. Holland. 1987. Culture and Cognition[A]. In D.Holland & N. Quinn (eds). Cultural Models in Language and Thought[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, et al. 1972. A Grammar of the Contemporary English[M]. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Radden, G. & Z. K?vecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radden, G. 2000. How Metonymic Are Metaphors[A]. In A. Barcelona (eds). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Grossroads[C]. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93-108.
Rakova, Marina. 2004. The Extent of the Literal Metaphor, Polysemy and Theory of Concepts[M]. Peiking: PeikingUniversity Press.
Ravin,Y. & C. Leacock. 2000. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories[A]. In T. E. Moore (eds). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language[C]. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, E. 1975a. Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E. 1975b. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 192-253.
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Saussure, F. De. 1916. Course de Linguistique Generale[M]. Paris: Payot. English version. A Course in General Linguistics, tr. W. Bskin (1959). London: owen.
Sweetser,E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects ofSemantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. 1993. Framing in Discourse[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization[M]. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd edition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tietz, Joan Ann. 2001. A Thousand Years of Sweet[M]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: the Case of“over”[J]. Language, 77: 724-765.
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford: Blackwel1.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Warren, B. 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds).
Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
A. T.斯皮尔金,1956,在人类发展的早期阶段上抽象思维的形成[A],言语思维意志感情及其它(中译本)[C],北京:科学出版社。
陈承泽,1922,国文法草创[M],北京:商务印书馆。
陈乐平,1991,出入“命门”——中国医学文化学导论[M],上海:三联书店,第44页。
崔希亮,2002,认知语言学:研究范围和研究方法[J],《语言教学与研究》第5期。
董为光,2004,汉语词义发展基本类型[M],武汉:华中科技大学出版社。
董志翘,1985,“脚”有“足”义始于何时[J],《中国语文》第5期。
恩格斯,1972,自然辩证法[A].马克思、恩格斯选集第3卷[C].北京:人民出版社,方一新,1987,“眼”当“目”讲始于唐代吗?[J],《语文研究》第3期。
高名凯,1953,关于汉语的词类分别[J],《中国语文》第10期。
耿菲菲,2004,意义理论的分析与整合[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
耿占春,1993,隐喻[M],北京:东方出版社。
龚群虎,1994,人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关间题[J],《语文研究》第4期。
古敬恒,2000,人体词与人的秘密[M],北京:团结出版社。
何杰,2000,现代汉语量词研究[M],北京:民族出版社。
侯玲文,2001,“心”义文化探索[J],《汉语学习》第3期。
黄雪贞,1983,永定方言词汇[J],《方言》第3期。
黎锦熙,1924,新著国语文法[M],北京:商务印书馆。
李国南,2001,辞格与词汇[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
李洪儒(李红儒),1999,认知链条上词的意义与指称对象[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
李宗江,1999,汉语常用词演变研究[M],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
列维布留尔,1981,原始思维[M],北京:商务印书馆。
刘长林,1990,中国系统思维[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
刘纶鑫,2001,江西客家方言概况[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
刘正光,2003,隐喻映射的本质特征[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
陆俭明、沈阳,2004,汉语和汉语研究十五讲(第2版)[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
吕传峰,2006,“嘴”的词义演变及其与“口”的历时更替[J],《语言研究》第1期。
吕叔湘,1942,中国文法要略[M],北京:商务印书馆。
马清华,2000,文化语义学[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
马清华,2000,隐喻意义的取象与文化认知[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期。
马玉蕾、房红梅,2005,类比和隐喻[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
苗力田等译,1994,亚里士多德全集(第4卷)[M],北京:中国人民大学出版社,第131一132页。
南红艳,1999,从leg表示人谈起[J],《咸阳师范专科学校学报》第5期。
萨丕尔,1985,语言论[M],北京:商务印书馆。
沈萍,2008,股票何以论“手”买[J],《咬文嚼字》第1期。
沈家煊,1994,“语法化”研究综观[ J],《外语教学与研究》第4期。
束定芳,1996,亚里斯多德与隐喻研究[J],《外语研究》第1期。
束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2004,隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J],《外国语》第3期。
束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
孙逊,1991,论从表示人体部位的词派生的词或词义—比较词义学探索[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
汪少华、徐健,2002,通感与概念隐喻[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
王力,1943,中国现代语法(1985年版)[M],北京:商务印书馆。
王力,1958,汉语史稿下册[M],北京:科学出版社,第499页。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王秉钦,1996,一叶知秋——谈词的语义结构类型与翻译[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
王德春,1980,论英语多义词词义体系[J],《外国语》第6期。
王德春,1997,语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王松鹤,2006,认知框架中的意义与含义反思[J],《外语学刊》第4期。
王文斌,2007,论隐喻解读中主体间性和隐喻间性[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
王文斌,2007,隐喻的认知构建与解读[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王益民,1990,英语词类转化中的多义现象[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
王云路、方一新,1992,《中古汉语语词例释》“眼”条[M],长春:吉林教育出版社,第425-427页。
维柯(朱光潜译),1997,新科学[M],北京:商务印书馆。
魏东波,2006,认知语言学框架中语义研究反思[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
文旭,2007,语义、认知与识解[J],《外语学刊》第6期。
谢庆芳,1981,英语的hand, head及其它———论以人体器官喻指人[J],《现代外语》第4期。
谢之君,2007,隐喻认知功能探索[M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
徐鹏,2000,英语词格[M],北京:商务印书馆。
杨忠、张绍杰,1998,认知语言学中的类典型[J],《外语教学与研究》第2期。
袁颖,2005,从认知语言学角度看阅读过程中的隐喻思维[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络:转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》第1期。
张建理,2006,英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第3期。
张永言、汪维辉,1995,关于汉语词汇史研究的一点思考[J],《中国语文》第6期。
张志毅,2005,词位的语义结构,“现代语义学学术研讨会”主题报告[J],哈尔滨。
张志毅、张庆云,2001,词汇语义学[M],北京:商务印书馆。
赵倩,2007,汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D],北京语言大学博士学位论文。
赵红梅,2006,汉语方言词汇语义比较研究[D],山东大学博士学位论文。
赵世开,1999,汉英对比语法论集[C],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
庄建灵,2003,英汉提喻修辞格对比——以人体器官、部位表示人为例[J],《泉州师范学院学报》(社会科学)第1期。
邹智勇,2000,语义范畴的认知语言学诠释[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
Collins, J. S. H. 1995. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. 2nd edition[Z]. New York: Harper Collins Publisher Ltd.
Flexner, S. B. 1987. The Random House Dictionary of The English Language. 2nd edition[Z]. New York: Random House.
Gove, P. B. & The Merriam– Webster Editorial Staff. 1976. Webster Third New International Dictionary[Z]. Massachusetts: G. C. Marriam Company.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1993. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series, Vol.1-2[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1997. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series, Vol.3[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Summers, D. Longman. 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English[Z]. London: Longman Group Ltd.
程湘清,1985古汉语实词释辩[Z],济南:山东教育出版社。
董大年,1998,现代汉语分类词典说文解字[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
段玉裁,1981,说文解字注[Z],上海:上海古籍出版社。
林杏光、菲白,1987,简明汉语义类词典[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
罗竹风主编,2000,现代汉语大词典[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
罗竹风主编,2001,汉语大词典(第2版)(全22册)[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
迈克阿瑟(英)编,2004,朗文多功能分类词典[Z],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
梅家驹、竺一鸣等编,1983,同义词词林[Z],上海:上海辞书出版社。
莫衡等主编,2001,当代汉语词典[Z],上海:上海辞书出版社。
商务印书馆编辑部编,1979,辞源[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
商务印书馆辞书研究中心编,2000,古今汉语词典[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
汤姆?麦克阿瑟(Tom McArthur)(英)主编,1989,朗曼当代英语分类词典[Z],北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司。
王力,2000,王力古汉语字典[M],北京:中华书局。
王力等编、蒋绍愚等增订,2005,古汉语常用字字典(第4版)[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
王力主编,2006,王力古汉语词典[Z],北京:中华书局。
许慎,1989,说文解字[Z],北京:中华书局。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,2005,现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
Goosens, L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action[A]. In Goossens, L. et. al. (eds.) By Word of Mouth. Metaphor and Metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective[C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamings.
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive Foundation of Grammar[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kansa, Mette. 2002. Body-part Related Metaphors in Thai and English[D]. PH. D. Dissertation. Ball State University.
Landa, A. 1996. Metaphorical Extension of the Names of Body Parts in English and Spanish[A]. RLA. Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada Concepcion (Chile)[C], 34: 129-39.
Matisoff, J. A. 1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman[M]. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Inc.
Matisoff, J. A. 1986. Hearts and Minds in South-East Asian Languages and English: An Essay in the Comparative Lexical Semantics of Phycho-collocations[A]. C. L. A. O. [C], 15(1): 5-57.
Oey, M. E. 1990. Phycho-collocations in Malay: A South-east Areal Feature[A]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area[C], 13(1): 141-158.
Rubal, E. R. 1994. Metaphors of the Body[D]. M. A. Thesis. Califania State University. Sakuragi, Toshiyuki and Judith W. Fuller. 2003. Body-Part Metaphors: A Cross-Cultural Survey of the Perception of Translatability Among Americans and Japanese[A]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research[C], 32(4): 381-395.
Suzuki, T. 1984. Words in Context: A Japanese Perspective on Language and Culture[M].New York: Condansha International.
Yu, Ning. 2000. Figurative Uses of Finger and Palm in Chinese and English[A]. Metaphor and Symbol[C], 15(3): 159-175.
Yu, Ning. 2003. Metaphor, Body, and Culture: The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage[A]. Metaphor and Symbol[C], 18(1), 13–31.
边立红,2003,从语义对应角度看汉语“心”的翻译[J],《哈尔滨学院学报》第6期。
程东岳,2007,“脸”的隐喻与转喻———基于“脸”的汉英语料对比研究[J],《华东交通大学学报》第3期。
储泽祥,1996,“满+N”与“全+N”朋[J],《中国语文》第5期。
董志翘,1985,“脚”有“足”义始于何时[J],《中国语文》第5期。
范利、聂春梅,2001,从认知语言学看名词临时作量词的语义演变规律[J],《湖南第一师范学报》第1期。
范淑云,2002,汉语中与人体部位相关语词的隐喻研究[D],南京师范大学硕士学位论文。
高明乐、朱文俊,2005,汉语“手”和英语“hand”的领域转移比较[J],《外语研究》第1期。
高晓荣,2006,从认知角度看人体隐喻[D],河北师范大学硕士学位论文。
郭芳睿,2007,俄语“人体成语”的认知语义分析[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
侯玲文,2001,“心”义文化探索[J],《汉语学习》第3期。
胡纯,2004,人体词的认知研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
黄凤,2006,人体隐喻的认知研究[D],四川大学硕士学位论文。
黄梅,2005,从认知角度看hand和Shou的语义扩展[D],北京语言大学硕士学位论文。
黄运亭,1997,英汉人体器官名词名转动比较研究[J],《华南理工大学学报》S2。
姜光辉,1994,汉语成语中的表情语言——成语中的人体语言研究之二[J],《北华大学学报》(社会科学版)第2期。
孔光,2004,从空间合成理论看身体名词的隐喻认知[J],《外语教学》第1期。
李竞,2007,“手”词语及其文化内容研究[D],内蒙古大学硕士学位论文。
李春琳,2004,多义词意义范畴的概念化—EYE的个案研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
李树新,2004,人体词语的认知模式与语义类推[J],《汉字文化》第4期。
李文莉,2007,人体隐喻系统研究[D],华东师范大学硕士学位论文。
廖艳平,2007,英汉人体词“head(头)”的隐喻研究[J],《现代语文》(语言研究版)第1期。
刘茁,2007,英语人体成语的隐喻性[J],《深圳大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第6期。
刘二林,2005,论英汉人体器官名词的动词用法[J],《中国科技翻译》第1期。
刘劼生，2000,表示事件的“数+N”结构[J],《世界汉语教学》第1期。
卢水林,2006,多义词的认知语义学研究[D],华中师范大学硕士学位论文。
卢卫中,2003,人体隐喻化的认知特点[J],《外语教学》第6期。
吕传峰,2006,“嘴”的词义演变及其与“口”的历时更替[J],《语言研究》第1期。
孟娜,2007,汉语人体器官类俗语的隐喻构建研究[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
齐振海、覃修贵,2003,论心的隐喻———基于英、汉语料库的对比研究[J],《外语研究》第3期。
齐振海、覃修贵,2004,“心”隐喻词语的范畴化研究[J],《外语研究》第6期。
齐振海、王义娜,2007,“心”词语的认知框架[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
钱进,1996,说“脚”构词系列及其文化内涵[J],《语文学刊》第4期。
邵健,2005,身体词的隐喻研究——以汉语“手”类词为例[J],《杭州师范学院学报》第5期。
盛春媛,2004,从认知角度看英汉常规隐喻及体喻[D],中国海洋大学硕士学位论文。
舒化龙,1983,汉语发展史略[M],呼和浩特:内蒙古教育出版社。
唐亚维,2005,英汉人体隐喻对比研究[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文。
田旭,2005,英汉人体隐喻化对比研究[D],哈尔滨工程大学硕士学位论文。
田灵枝,2007,人体部位作为源范畴的隐喻构词[J],《安阳工学院学报》第2期。
万红梅,2005,现代俄语中人体词隐喻化的认知分析[D],苏州大学硕士学位论文。
汪维辉,2000,东汉-隋常用词演变研究[M],南京:南京大学出版社。
王力,1980,汉语史稿(一卷本)[M],北京:中华书局。
王敏,2004,论Hand词义演变的认知动因——基于圣经的语料分析[J],《绍兴文理学院学报》第5期。
王群,2005,“手”隐喻的认知性分析[D],华北电力大学硕士学位论文。
王艳,2006,多义现象的认知研究:“心”的个案研究[D],哈尔滨工业大学硕士学位论文。
王宝平,2005,中日身体部位惯用语的比较[J],《日语学习与研究》第2期。
王彩丽,2002,通过名词性人体隐喻透析人的认知过程[J],《山东外语教学》第4期。
王丽莉,2007,关于“手”多义性的中日对比研究[D],吉林大学硕士学位论文。
王荔俪,2007,一词多义英汉异同对比——以“手”为例[J],《连云港师范高等专科学校学报》第3期。
王群、齐振海,2005,“手”词语的结构化分析[J],《华北电力大学学报》(社会科学版)第1期。
王文斌,2001,论汉语“心”的空间隐喻的结构化[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
王迎春,2005,试论汉语中表人体部位词的隐喻现象[J],《语文学刊》第9期。
吴金华,1986,“脚”有“足”义始于汉末[J],《中国语文》第4期。
向二兰,2007,“脸”的隐喻意义探源[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
肖灵,2007,人体隐喻的认知分析[J],《赣南师范学院学报》第1期。
许晋,2004,人体词语及其文化内涵分析[D],内蒙古大学硕士学位论文。
严爽,2006,英语“hand”和汉语“手”之一词多义对比[J],《浙江科技学院学报》第4期。
杨德龙、杨小洪,2005,汉语文化鼻赋值的溯源[J],《杭州师范学院学报》(社会科学版)第3期。
叶鸣,2004,汉英概念隐喻对比[D],黑龙江大学硕士学位论文。
余红卫,2006,隐喻:眼睛通向心智的桥梁——基于汉、英语料的跨文化研究[D],广西师范大学硕士学位论文。
张建理,2003,英汉多义词异同研讨:以“脸、面”为例[J],《外国语》(上海外国语大学学报)第4期。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络:转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》第1期。
张建理,2006,英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第3期。
张荆萍,2004,隐喻在汉语新词义产生中的生成机制[J],《宁波广播电视大学学报》第4期。
赵倩,2007,汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D],北京语言大学博士学位论文。
赵伟礼,1997,英汉体语词对比从人体习语的文化意义谈起[J],《华南理工大学学报》S2。
赵伟礼,1999,英汉“动物词十器官词”结构对比与翻译[J],《四川外语学院学报》第2期。
赵永新,1993,反映人体器官的词语及其文化因素[J],《语言文字应用》第2期。
[泰国]文雅丽,2004,人体头部同称器官词研究[D],北京语言大学硕士学位论文。
Aitchison, J. 1999. Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edition[M]. London: Hodder Headline.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and Poetics[M]. NewYork: The Modern Library.
Barcelona, A. 2003. Introduction. The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy[A]. In Barcelona, Antonio (eds). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Grossroads[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blank, A. 1999. Co-presence and Succession: A Cognitive Typology of Metonymy[A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther& G. Radden (Eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. 1975. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning[A]. In C. Cogen et al (eds). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C]. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame Semantics[C]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantica, 6/2: 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J. & B. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The Case of‘Crawl’[A]. In Raven, Y. & C. Leacock (eds). Polysemy[C]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, J. 1982. Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis[A]. in R. J. Jarvellaand W. Klein (eds). Speech, Place and Action[C]. New York∶Wiley.
Fromkin, V. & R. Rodman. 1988. An Introduction to Language[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4:223-272.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of the Mind[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goosens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Actions[A]. In Goossens, L. et. al (eds). By Word of Mouth[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamings Publishing Company.
Goossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Actions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1-3: 323-340.
Hallidy, M. A. K. & R. Husan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria: Deakin University.
Jackendoff, R. S. 1985. Multiple Subcategorization and the Theta-criterion: the Case of Climb[J]. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory, 3: 271-95.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics[A]. In T. A. Sebeok (eds). Style in Language[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jespersen, O. 1985. Language, its Nature, Development and Origin[M]. London: George Allen & Unwin, 57.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kapp, E. 1877. Grundlinien einer Philosophic: der Technik. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Cultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten[M]. Braunsehweig.
Katz, J. & J. Fodor. 1963. The Structure of a Semantic Theory[J]. Language, 39. Katz, J. 1972. Semantic Theory[M]. New York: Harper & Row.
Koch, P. 1999. Frame and Contiguity: on the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.
Kovecses, Z. 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurath, Hans. 1921. The Semantic Sources of the Words for the Emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic Languages[M], Menasha (Wisc.): Banta.
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: George town University Press, 340-373.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago 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: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar vol.Ⅰ: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford[M]. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar vol.Ⅱ: Descriptive Application. Stanford[M]. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W.1993. Referenence-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 4.
Lyons,J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malmgren, Sven-Goran. 1988. On Regular Polysemy in Swedish, in Gavare, R. & M. Gellerstam (eds.). Studies in Computer-aided Lexicology[C]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Interntional.
Minsky, M. A. 1975. Framework for Representing Knowledge[A]. in Winston P. H. (eds.). The Psychology of Computer Vision[C]. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ortony, A. 1993. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, H. E. 1964. A Grammatical Dictionary of English Words[M]. London: Longman.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & G. Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pomerantz, J. P. et al. 1977. Perception of Wholes and Their Component Parts: Some Configural Superiority Effects[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3.
Quinn, N. & D. Holland. 1987. Culture and Cognition[A]. In D.Holland & N. Quinn (eds). Cultural Models in Language and Thought[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, et al. 1972. A Grammar of the Contemporary English[M]. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Radden, G. & Z. K?vecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radden, G. 2000. How Metonymic Are Metaphors[A]. In A. Barcelona (eds). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Grossroads[C]. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93-108.
Rakova, Marina. 2004. The Extent of the Literal Metaphor, Polysemy and Theory of Concepts[M]. Peiking: PeikingUniversity Press.
Ravin,Y. & C. Leacock. 2000. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories[A]. In T. E. Moore (eds). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language[C]. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, E. 1975a. Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E. 1975b. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 192-253.
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Saussure, F. De. 1916. Course de Linguistique Generale[M]. Paris: Payot. English version. A Course in General Linguistics, tr. W. Bskin (1959). London: owen.
Sweetser,E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects ofSemantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. 1993. Framing in Discourse[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization[M]. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd edition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tietz, Joan Ann. 2001. A Thousand Years of Sweet[M]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: the Case of“over”[J]. Language, 77: 724-765.
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. Oxford: Blackwel1.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Warren, B. 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy[A]. In K. Panther & G. Radden (eds).
Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
A. T.斯皮尔金,1956,在人类发展的早期阶段上抽象思维的形成[A],言语思维意志感情及其它(中译本)[C],北京:科学出版社。
陈承泽,1922,国文法草创[M],北京:商务印书馆。
陈乐平,1991,出入“命门”——中国医学文化学导论[M],上海:三联书店,第44页。
崔希亮,2002,认知语言学:研究范围和研究方法[J],《语言教学与研究》第5期。
董为光,2004,汉语词义发展基本类型[M],武汉:华中科技大学出版社。
董志翘,1985,“脚”有“足”义始于何时[J],《中国语文》第5期。
恩格斯,1972,自然辩证法[A].马克思、恩格斯选集第3卷[C].北京:人民出版社,方一新,1987,“眼”当“目”讲始于唐代吗?[J],《语文研究》第3期。
高名凯,1953,关于汉语的词类分别[J],《中国语文》第10期。
耿菲菲,2004,意义理论的分析与整合[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
耿占春,1993,隐喻[M],北京:东方出版社。
龚群虎,1994,人体器官名词普遍性的意义变化及相关间题[J],《语文研究》第4期。
古敬恒,2000,人体词与人的秘密[M],北京:团结出版社。
何杰,2000,现代汉语量词研究[M],北京:民族出版社。
侯玲文,2001,“心”义文化探索[J],《汉语学习》第3期。
黄雪贞,1983,永定方言词汇[J],《方言》第3期。
黎锦熙,1924,新著国语文法[M],北京:商务印书馆。
李国南,2001,辞格与词汇[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
李洪儒(李红儒),1999,认知链条上词的意义与指称对象[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
李宗江,1999,汉语常用词演变研究[M],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
列维布留尔,1981,原始思维[M],北京:商务印书馆。
刘长林,1990,中国系统思维[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
刘纶鑫,2001,江西客家方言概况[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
刘正光,2003,隐喻映射的本质特征[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
陆俭明、沈阳,2004,汉语和汉语研究十五讲(第2版)[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
吕传峰,2006,“嘴”的词义演变及其与“口”的历时更替[J],《语言研究》第1期。
吕叔湘,1942,中国文法要略[M],北京:商务印书馆。
马清华,2000,文化语义学[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
马清华,2000,隐喻意义的取象与文化认知[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期。
马玉蕾、房红梅,2005,类比和隐喻[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
苗力田等译,1994,亚里士多德全集(第4卷)[M],北京:中国人民大学出版社,第131一132页。
南红艳,1999,从leg表示人谈起[J],《咸阳师范专科学校学报》第5期。
萨丕尔,1985,语言论[M],北京:商务印书馆。
沈萍,2008,股票何以论“手”买[J],《咬文嚼字》第1期。
沈家煊,1994,“语法化”研究综观[ J],《外语教学与研究》第4期。
束定芳,1996,亚里斯多德与隐喻研究[J],《外语研究》第1期。
束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2004,隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J],《外国语》第3期。
束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
孙逊,1991,论从表示人体部位的词派生的词或词义—比较词义学探索[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
汪少华、徐健,2002,通感与概念隐喻[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
王力,1943,中国现代语法(1985年版)[M],北京:商务印书馆。
王力,1958,汉语史稿下册[M],北京:科学出版社,第499页。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王秉钦,1996,一叶知秋——谈词的语义结构类型与翻译[J],《外语学刊》第2期。
王德春,1980,论英语多义词词义体系[J],《外国语》第6期。
王德春,1997,语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王松鹤,2006,认知框架中的意义与含义反思[J],《外语学刊》第4期。
王文斌,2007,论隐喻解读中主体间性和隐喻间性[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
王文斌,2007,隐喻的认知构建与解读[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王益民,1990,英语词类转化中的多义现象[J],《外语学刊》第1期。
王云路、方一新,1992,《中古汉语语词例释》“眼”条[M],长春:吉林教育出版社,第425-427页。
维柯(朱光潜译),1997,新科学[M],北京:商务印书馆。
魏东波,2006,认知语言学框架中语义研究反思[J],《外语学刊》第5期。
文旭,2007,语义、认知与识解[J],《外语学刊》第6期。
谢庆芳,1981,英语的hand, head及其它———论以人体器官喻指人[J],《现代外语》第4期。
谢之君,2007,隐喻认知功能探索[M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
徐鹏,2000,英语词格[M],北京:商务印书馆。
杨忠、张绍杰,1998,认知语言学中的类典型[J],《外语教学与研究》第2期。
袁颖,2005,从认知语言学角度看阅读过程中的隐喻思维[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期。
张建理,2005,汉语“心”的多义网络:转喻与隐喻[J],《修辞学习》第1期。
张建理,2006,英汉“心”的多义网络对比[J],《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第3期。
张永言、汪维辉,1995,关于汉语词汇史研究的一点思考[J],《中国语文》第6期。
张志毅,2005,词位的语义结构,“现代语义学学术研讨会”主题报告[J],哈尔滨。
张志毅、张庆云,2001,词汇语义学[M],北京:商务印书馆。
赵倩,2007,汉语人体名词词义演变规律及认知动因[D],北京语言大学博士学位论文。
赵红梅,2006,汉语方言词汇语义比较研究[D],山东大学博士学位论文。
赵世开,1999,汉英对比语法论集[C],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
庄建灵,2003,英汉提喻修辞格对比——以人体器官、部位表示人为例[J],《泉州师范学院学报》(社会科学)第1期。
邹智勇,2000,语义范畴的认知语言学诠释[J],《外语学刊》第3期。
Collins, J. S. H. 1995. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. 2nd edition[Z]. New York: Harper Collins Publisher Ltd.
Flexner, S. B. 1987. The Random House Dictionary of The English Language. 2nd edition[Z]. New York: Random House.
Gove, P. B. & The Merriam– Webster Editorial Staff. 1976. Webster Third New International Dictionary[Z]. Massachusetts: G. C. Marriam Company.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1993. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series, Vol.1-2[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simpson, J. A. & E. S. C. Weiner. 1997. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series, Vol.3[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Summers, D. Longman. 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English[Z]. London: Longman Group Ltd.
程湘清,1985古汉语实词释辩[Z],济南:山东教育出版社。
董大年,1998,现代汉语分类词典说文解字[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
段玉裁,1981,说文解字注[Z],上海:上海古籍出版社。
林杏光、菲白,1987,简明汉语义类词典[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
罗竹风主编,2000,现代汉语大词典[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
罗竹风主编,2001,汉语大词典(第2版)(全22册)[Z],上海:汉语大词典出版社。
迈克阿瑟(英)编,2004,朗文多功能分类词典[Z],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
梅家驹、竺一鸣等编,1983,同义词词林[Z],上海:上海辞书出版社。
莫衡等主编,2001,当代汉语词典[Z],上海:上海辞书出版社。
商务印书馆编辑部编,1979,辞源[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
商务印书馆辞书研究中心编,2000,古今汉语词典[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
汤姆?麦克阿瑟(Tom McArthur)(英)主编,1989,朗曼当代英语分类词典[Z],北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司。
王力,2000,王力古汉语字典[M],北京:中华书局。
王力等编、蒋绍愚等增订,2005,古汉语常用字字典(第4版)[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
王力主编,2006,王力古汉语词典[Z],北京:中华书局。
许慎,1989,说文解字[Z],北京:中华书局。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,2005,现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z],北京:商务印书馆。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |