基于概念整合理论的移就认知语义学研究
|
摘要
修辞学家认为,移就是一种重要的修辞格,是一种超常搭配的语言现象。它是指当甲乙两事物相关联时,把原用于形容甲事物的修饰语移用来描写乙事物。它不仅用于文学作品中,还广泛存在于日常语言当中,使语言简洁、生动、鲜明。传统的移就研究都集中在它的定义、分类、形成规则、美学功能和翻译等方面,而忽视了其意义建构的认知过程。Fauconnier和Turner提出的概念整合理论为研究移就提供了一个新的视角。该理论认为概念整合是一种基本的认知能力,存在于感知、理解和记忆的各个层面。概念整合以心理空间为基本单位,通过跨空间映射将两个输入空间投射到第三个空间,即复合空间。复合空间承接输入空间的部分结构,并产生自己独特的突生结构。整合网络能将分散的概念结构压缩成为整合空间中的易于理解的且可操作的、人类易于把握的场境,因此概念整合对移就这一超常搭配的意义建构过程必将具有强大的解释力。
基于前人对移就的研究成果,本文以概念整合理论为框架,采用内省和定性分析的方法,从跨空间映射和关键关系的压缩两方面论证了移就意义建构的认知过程。通过分析,本文得出了如下结论:
首先,移就不仅是一种语言现象,还是一种思维现象。它基于人们在世界中的体验和邻近联想。人们无意识地将外界具体的表象或行为与抽象的感觉或特征联系起来,从而形象地表达复杂的个人情感。
其次,移就的在线意义建构在很大程度上依赖于概念整合。为解决移就的修饰语和被修饰语之间的语义冲突,人们将语言、语境和背景知识整合起来,构建成相应的认知模型,寻找它们之间的映射,并将它们整合到一个复合空间里。除此之外,通过整合,空间之间的关键关系在复合空间里被压缩成新的关键关系,从而达到对语言的理解。
最后,概念整合理论对意义建构具有很强的解释力。投射映射、图式映射、概念整合网络中的部分投射和突生结构、空间之间关键关系的压缩展现了语言背后的认知过程,解释了为什么表面上不合逻辑的搭配却不妨碍我们对语言的理解。
本文为研究移就的意义建构提供了一个新的、动态的视角。它有助于语言学习者更好地理解移就,从而帮助其解决在移就使用和翻译上的问题。此外,它将概念整合理论扩展到对移就的研究,进一步证明了该理论的普遍适用性和强大的解释力。
As a rhetorical device of transnormal collocation and a phenomenon of linguistic deviation, transferred epithet refers to the transference of the modifier from the appropriate noun to another to which it does not really belong. It is widely used, not only in literary works, but also in daily expressions. They are terse, vivid and impressive, achieving both efficiency and creativity. Most of the former studies of transferred epithet focus on its identification, classification, formation, aesthetic function, translation, etc, however, the cognitive process of its meaning construction has not been scientifically illustrated yet. The conceptual integration theory proposed and developed by Fauconnier (1997, 1998, 2002, 2006) and Turner (1998, 2006) offers a new perspective to the study of transferred epithet. It assumes that conceptual integration is a fundamental cognitive ability taking place at all levels of perception, of understanding, and of memory. It refers to a set of operations combining cognitive models in a network of mental spaces. It operates on two input mental spaces to yield a third space, the blend. The blend inherits partial structure from the input spaces and has emergent structure of its own. A central feature of integration networks is their ability to compress diffuse conceptual structures into intelligible and manipulatable human scale situations in a blended space, so it must be powerful in interpreting the meaning construction of transferred epithet, the modifier and the modified of which are illogically combined.
Based on the former studies of transferred epithet and Fauconnier and Turner’s conceptual integration theory, this dissertation adopts a cognitive semantic approach to the in-depth analysis of the on-line meaning construction of transferred epithet. It is carried out from two aspects: one is the cross-space mapping and the other is the compression of outer-space Vital Relations into inner-space Vital Relations through blending. The methodology adopted in this study is mainly introspection supported by some amount of language data.
Through analysis, several conclusions are drawn as follows:
Firstly, transferred epithet is not only a matter of words, but also thought and action. It is based on people’s bodily experience in the world and is generated on the basis of association of contiguity. Human beings unconsciously associate the outside, concrete appearance or behaviors with abstract inaccessible feelings or characteristics to vividly and validly express a complicated personal sensation.
Secondly, the on-line meaning construction of transferred epithet depends heavily on conceptual integration. To solve the conflict between the modifier and the modified in transferred epithet, people integrate the linguistic, contextual, and background knowledge to create cognitive models, find out the mappings between them and integrate them in a blended space. Besides that, outer-space Vital Relations are compressed into inner-space Vital Relations through blending to achieve global insight and human-scale understanding.
Finally, conceptual integration theory is a powerful theory for meaning construction. The projection mapping and schematic mapping between mental spaces, the partial projection and the emergent structure in conceptual integration networks and the compression and creation of Vital Relations help to find out what is happening backstage and answer why such illogical combination does not prevent the listener or the reader from understanding the speaker’or the writer’s intension.
This study explores the meaning construction of transferred epithet from a new perspective. It can help the language learners have a better understanding of transferred epithets, and thus they can use and translate them proficiently. Besides that, it extends the study of conceptual integration to the field of transferred epithet, and thus in turn helps to prove the ubiquity and the explanatory power of this theory.
基于前人对移就的研究成果,本文以概念整合理论为框架,采用内省和定性分析的方法,从跨空间映射和关键关系的压缩两方面论证了移就意义建构的认知过程。通过分析,本文得出了如下结论:
首先,移就不仅是一种语言现象,还是一种思维现象。它基于人们在世界中的体验和邻近联想。人们无意识地将外界具体的表象或行为与抽象的感觉或特征联系起来,从而形象地表达复杂的个人情感。
其次,移就的在线意义建构在很大程度上依赖于概念整合。为解决移就的修饰语和被修饰语之间的语义冲突,人们将语言、语境和背景知识整合起来,构建成相应的认知模型,寻找它们之间的映射,并将它们整合到一个复合空间里。除此之外,通过整合,空间之间的关键关系在复合空间里被压缩成新的关键关系,从而达到对语言的理解。
最后,概念整合理论对意义建构具有很强的解释力。投射映射、图式映射、概念整合网络中的部分投射和突生结构、空间之间关键关系的压缩展现了语言背后的认知过程,解释了为什么表面上不合逻辑的搭配却不妨碍我们对语言的理解。
本文为研究移就的意义建构提供了一个新的、动态的视角。它有助于语言学习者更好地理解移就,从而帮助其解决在移就使用和翻译上的问题。此外,它将概念整合理论扩展到对移就的研究,进一步证明了该理论的普遍适用性和强大的解释力。
As a rhetorical device of transnormal collocation and a phenomenon of linguistic deviation, transferred epithet refers to the transference of the modifier from the appropriate noun to another to which it does not really belong. It is widely used, not only in literary works, but also in daily expressions. They are terse, vivid and impressive, achieving both efficiency and creativity. Most of the former studies of transferred epithet focus on its identification, classification, formation, aesthetic function, translation, etc, however, the cognitive process of its meaning construction has not been scientifically illustrated yet. The conceptual integration theory proposed and developed by Fauconnier (1997, 1998, 2002, 2006) and Turner (1998, 2006) offers a new perspective to the study of transferred epithet. It assumes that conceptual integration is a fundamental cognitive ability taking place at all levels of perception, of understanding, and of memory. It refers to a set of operations combining cognitive models in a network of mental spaces. It operates on two input mental spaces to yield a third space, the blend. The blend inherits partial structure from the input spaces and has emergent structure of its own. A central feature of integration networks is their ability to compress diffuse conceptual structures into intelligible and manipulatable human scale situations in a blended space, so it must be powerful in interpreting the meaning construction of transferred epithet, the modifier and the modified of which are illogically combined.
Based on the former studies of transferred epithet and Fauconnier and Turner’s conceptual integration theory, this dissertation adopts a cognitive semantic approach to the in-depth analysis of the on-line meaning construction of transferred epithet. It is carried out from two aspects: one is the cross-space mapping and the other is the compression of outer-space Vital Relations into inner-space Vital Relations through blending. The methodology adopted in this study is mainly introspection supported by some amount of language data.
Through analysis, several conclusions are drawn as follows:
Firstly, transferred epithet is not only a matter of words, but also thought and action. It is based on people’s bodily experience in the world and is generated on the basis of association of contiguity. Human beings unconsciously associate the outside, concrete appearance or behaviors with abstract inaccessible feelings or characteristics to vividly and validly express a complicated personal sensation.
Secondly, the on-line meaning construction of transferred epithet depends heavily on conceptual integration. To solve the conflict between the modifier and the modified in transferred epithet, people integrate the linguistic, contextual, and background knowledge to create cognitive models, find out the mappings between them and integrate them in a blended space. Besides that, outer-space Vital Relations are compressed into inner-space Vital Relations through blending to achieve global insight and human-scale understanding.
Finally, conceptual integration theory is a powerful theory for meaning construction. The projection mapping and schematic mapping between mental spaces, the partial projection and the emergent structure in conceptual integration networks and the compression and creation of Vital Relations help to find out what is happening backstage and answer why such illogical combination does not prevent the listener or the reader from understanding the speaker’or the writer’s intension.
This study explores the meaning construction of transferred epithet from a new perspective. It can help the language learners have a better understanding of transferred epithets, and thus they can use and translate them proficiently. Besides that, it extends the study of conceptual integration to the field of transferred epithet, and thus in turn helps to prove the ubiquity and the explanatory power of this theory.
引文
Austen, J. (1995). Pride and prejudice. London: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Z. L. (2005). Cognitive studies in language and culture. Qingdao: China Ocean University Press.
Clausner, T.C. & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31.
Coulson, S. (1997). Semantic leaps: The role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjective. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and Function in Language (pp.143-158). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/partee/NZ_2006/Coulson%20and%20Fauconnier.pdf
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175-196.
Cuddon, J.A. (1979). A dictionary of literary terms. Great Britain: W and J Mackay Limited. Evans, V. (2006). Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4):133-187.
Evans, V., Bergen, B.K., & Zinken, J. (2006). The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Edinburgh: Equinox Publishing Company. Available at :http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/psychology/staff/downloads/filetodownload,68131,en.pdf
Evans, V. (in press). LCCM Theory: Assumptions, Antecedents and Architecture. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Available at: http://www.vyvevans.net/LCCM%20Theory.pdf
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1995). Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy. In D.G. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, & B.N. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind (pp.255-286). Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fauconnier, G. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G. (2005). Compression and emergent structure. Language and Linguistics,6 (4), 523-538. Available at: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/CES.pdf
Fauconnier, G. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 1-14, Available at: http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~triesch/courses/cogs1/readings/Cognitive linguistics.pdf
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp.113-130). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Available at: http://markturner.org/centralprocess.WWW/centralprocess.html
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187. Available at: http://markturner.org/cin.web/cin.html
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguisticse, 11(3/4), 283-304.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2006). Rethinking metaphor. In . R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp.1-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/RethinkingMetaphor19f06.pdf
Grady, J. (2000). Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual integration. Cognitive Linguisticse, 11(3/4), 335-345.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application (Vol.2). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1986). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Otorny (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lanham, R.A. (1991). A manual of rhetorical terms. USA: University of California Press.
Nesfield, J.C. & Wood, F.T. (1964). Manual of English grammar and composition. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Saeed, J.I. (1997). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol.1). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring (Vol.2). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183-204. Available at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~uophil/metaphor/turner.htm
Turner, M. (2006). Compression and representation. Language and Literature, 15(1), 17-27. Available at: http://markturner.org/LanguageAndLiteratureTurner.pdf
Ungerer,F.& Schmid, H.J. (1996). Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Wesley Longman Limited.
Wales, K.A. (1989). A dictionary of Stylistics. England: Longman Group UK Ltd.
《辞海》. (1979).上海:上海辞书出版社.
陈望道. (1979).《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
范家材. (1998).《英语修辞赏析》.上海:上海交通大学出版社.
房红梅,严世清. (2004).概念整合运作的认知理据.《外语与外语教学》,(4),9-12
黄慧敏. (2002).英语“移就”的逻辑性矛盾析.《外语研究》,(3), 50-52.
黄任. (1996).《英语修辞与写作》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
蒋跃. (2000).英汉移就中的两种特殊的转移形式.《外语与外语教学》,(12), 8-9.
李国南. (2001).《辞格与词汇》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
林志萍. (2001).转移修饰法(移就)及其翻译初探.《宁德师专学报》,(2), 61-63.
刘源甫. (2003).论移就修辞语义信息互动的形成和理解.《外语与外语教学》, (2), 10-16.
刘正光. (2002). Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑.《外语与外语教学》, (10), 8-12.
秦晔. (2005).转移表述词语的理解与翻译.《淮阴工学院学报》,14(4), 37-39.
瞿宗德. (2002).修饰语移就的翻译策略.《上海海运学院学报》,23(1), 95-99.
孙锐. (2007).联想与英语同源格.《重庆工学院学报》,(11), 127-129.
汪火焰. (2000).英语移就修辞格及其翻译浅析.《中国翻译》,(6), 30-34.
王懿. (2006).概念整合理论在意义建构中的解释力.《安徽大学学报》,30(5), 92-95.
王轶群. (1999).浅论英汉“移就”修辞格.《安徽教育学院学报》,16(1), 53-55.
王正元. (2006).概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿.《四川外语学院学报》,22(6), 65-70.
许艾明. (2001).再论转类形容词.《中南工业大学学报》,7(3), 283-285.
徐层珍. (2005).英语移就格的解读及其翻译策略.《深圳信息职业技术学院学报》,3(3), 85-90.
颜妮娜. (2004).论英语移就的生成理据.《贵州教育学院学报》,20(3), 91-93.
张汉熙. (1995).《高级英语》.北京:外语教育与研究出版社.
张辉. (1995).语言变异的审美心理探析——从广告语言的变异谈起.《现代外语》,(2), 45-48.
张辉. (2003).《熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究》.北京:军事谊文出版社.
赵艳芳. (2001).《认知语言学概论》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
Brown, G & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Z. L. (2005). Cognitive studies in language and culture. Qingdao: China Ocean University Press.
Clausner, T.C. & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31.
Coulson, S. (1997). Semantic leaps: The role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjective. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and Function in Language (pp.143-158). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/partee/NZ_2006/Coulson%20and%20Fauconnier.pdf
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175-196.
Cuddon, J.A. (1979). A dictionary of literary terms. Great Britain: W and J Mackay Limited. Evans, V. (2006). Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4):133-187.
Evans, V., Bergen, B.K., & Zinken, J. (2006). The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Edinburgh: Equinox Publishing Company. Available at :http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/psychology/staff/downloads/filetodownload,68131,en.pdf
Evans, V. (in press). LCCM Theory: Assumptions, Antecedents and Architecture. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Available at: http://www.vyvevans.net/LCCM%20Theory.pdf
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1995). Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy. In D.G. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, & B.N. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind (pp.255-286). Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fauconnier, G. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G. (2005). Compression and emergent structure. Language and Linguistics,6 (4), 523-538. Available at: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/CES.pdf
Fauconnier, G. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 1-14, Available at: http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~triesch/courses/cogs1/readings/Cognitive linguistics.pdf
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp.113-130). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Available at: http://markturner.org/centralprocess.WWW/centralprocess.html
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187. Available at: http://markturner.org/cin.web/cin.html
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguisticse, 11(3/4), 283-304.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2006). Rethinking metaphor. In . R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp.1-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/RethinkingMetaphor19f06.pdf
Grady, J. (2000). Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual integration. Cognitive Linguisticse, 11(3/4), 335-345.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application (Vol.2). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1986). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Otorny (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lanham, R.A. (1991). A manual of rhetorical terms. USA: University of California Press.
Nesfield, J.C. & Wood, F.T. (1964). Manual of English grammar and composition. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Saeed, J.I. (1997). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol.1). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring (Vol.2). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183-204. Available at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~uophil/metaphor/turner.htm
Turner, M. (2006). Compression and representation. Language and Literature, 15(1), 17-27. Available at: http://markturner.org/LanguageAndLiteratureTurner.pdf
Ungerer,F.& Schmid, H.J. (1996). Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Wesley Longman Limited.
Wales, K.A. (1989). A dictionary of Stylistics. England: Longman Group UK Ltd.
《辞海》. (1979).上海:上海辞书出版社.
陈望道. (1979).《修辞学发凡》.上海:上海教育出版社.
范家材. (1998).《英语修辞赏析》.上海:上海交通大学出版社.
房红梅,严世清. (2004).概念整合运作的认知理据.《外语与外语教学》,(4),9-12
黄慧敏. (2002).英语“移就”的逻辑性矛盾析.《外语研究》,(3), 50-52.
黄任. (1996).《英语修辞与写作》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
蒋跃. (2000).英汉移就中的两种特殊的转移形式.《外语与外语教学》,(12), 8-9.
李国南. (2001).《辞格与词汇》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
林志萍. (2001).转移修饰法(移就)及其翻译初探.《宁德师专学报》,(2), 61-63.
刘源甫. (2003).论移就修辞语义信息互动的形成和理解.《外语与外语教学》, (2), 10-16.
刘正光. (2002). Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑.《外语与外语教学》, (10), 8-12.
秦晔. (2005).转移表述词语的理解与翻译.《淮阴工学院学报》,14(4), 37-39.
瞿宗德. (2002).修饰语移就的翻译策略.《上海海运学院学报》,23(1), 95-99.
孙锐. (2007).联想与英语同源格.《重庆工学院学报》,(11), 127-129.
汪火焰. (2000).英语移就修辞格及其翻译浅析.《中国翻译》,(6), 30-34.
王懿. (2006).概念整合理论在意义建构中的解释力.《安徽大学学报》,30(5), 92-95.
王轶群. (1999).浅论英汉“移就”修辞格.《安徽教育学院学报》,16(1), 53-55.
王正元. (2006).概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿.《四川外语学院学报》,22(6), 65-70.
许艾明. (2001).再论转类形容词.《中南工业大学学报》,7(3), 283-285.
徐层珍. (2005).英语移就格的解读及其翻译策略.《深圳信息职业技术学院学报》,3(3), 85-90.
颜妮娜. (2004).论英语移就的生成理据.《贵州教育学院学报》,20(3), 91-93.
张汉熙. (1995).《高级英语》.北京:外语教育与研究出版社.
张辉. (1995).语言变异的审美心理探析——从广告语言的变异谈起.《现代外语》,(2), 45-48.
张辉. (2003).《熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究》.北京:军事谊文出版社.
赵艳芳. (2001).《认知语言学概论》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.