下义关系的认知语义研究
摘要
下义关系是一种存在于概括词和具体词之间的词义纵聚合关系。本论文是从认知和语义的视角对下义关系进行系统的研究。
与下义关系相关的研究涉及哲学、认知科学和语言学。其在哲学领域的相关研究可以追溯到亚里士多德关于man和animal之间的种属包含关系。这种包含关系在冯堡特对于人类语言结构和精神发展的哲学研究中被认为是人类与生俱来的，即人类为了达到思维的条理严密，天生具有一种将不同概念分类成为种范畴和属范畴的本能。
对下义关系的哲学研究关注词汇意义的所指与客观被指称物之间的相互关系，而非词汇意义之间的相互关系。相关的认知科学研究则关注人类对客观世界的分类模式和认知结构，其中包括认知心理学中的范畴理论和原型结构(Rosch1973，1976，1978)，人类语言学中的民俗生物分类(Berlin 1973，1976，1978)，以及信息科学中的WordNet等。而对下义关系的语言学研究则是传统的结构主义词汇语义学对于包括同义关系、反义关系、下义关系、以及部分／整体关系等词汇意义关系研究的一项重要内容。对下义关系的语言学研究一直关注这种词汇意义关系在语言词汇结构中的作用，如索绪尔(1915)和特里尔(1932，1934)。这一与下义关系相关的语言学研究传统在当代对词汇语义学的系统研究有：《结构语义学》(Lyons 1968)，《语义学》(Lyons 1977)，《语义场和词汇结构》(Lehrer1974)，《词汇语义学》(Cruse 1986)，《语言的范畴化：语言理论中的类典型》(Taylor 1996)，《心理词汇中的动词结构》(Pavlicic 2004)等。
莱昂斯(1968：453，1977：291)是最早对下义关系命名和定义的语言学家。这种介于上义词和下义词及其共下义词之间的词汇意义纵聚合关系很快为语言学界所接受，并在语言分析中发挥了重要作用。然而，对下义关系的研究仍然存在一些有待于解决的问题。首先，在下义关系的包含方向上存在分歧，即上义词包含下义词，还是下义词包含上义词。其次，把下义关系分析成为上义词和下义词之间的二分结构使得下义关系成为一个相对的概念，导致了一个下义关系中的下义词可能成为另一个下义关系中的上义词。这样就混淆了下义关系结构中不同层级的地位差异。再次，大多数下义关系研究局限于某一单个语言内部，而缺少对不同语言进行对比研究。最后，下义关系研究一般只涉及词汇意义关系，很少扩大到词级以上的语言上下文之中进行考察。本论文是从认知和语义的视角对上述问题进行系统的分析。
论文共分四大部分：历史背景、文献综述、理论探索和语料分析。本文通过对相关历史背景的分析明确下义关系的基本定义，并对下义关系的研究提出了这样一个理论假设，即认知概念是人类共通的，并且以词的形式在不同语言中反映出来。因此，我们对下义关系的认知语义研究旨在系统考察词义的聚合关系，以及认知概念和词汇意义之间的相互关系。
文献综述主要分析不同学科针对下义关系现象所采用的研究方法和取得的研究成果。语言学研究中的结构主义研究方法尽管具有其理论和实用价值，但是在对不同语篇上下文中的下义关系研究却存在不足。本文中的理论探索部分就是运用认知和语义的研究视角对下义关系进行三级分类研究，这种基于认知和语义的三级下义关系研究模式对于下义关系现象中存在的语义传递和不规则等特点可以进行更加全面和充分的描写和解释。有充足的证据表明，该研究模式能够更好地反映人类认知的分类特点，即人类将纷繁复杂的客观世界简化为有组织的分类范畴，并对之进行有系统的范畴化和概念化。
本文的语料分析是针对三级下义关系研究模式的语料检测，包括对名词、动词、形容词等下义关系的分类，下义关系的英汉对比研究，以及下义关系在词组、句子、段落和语篇上下文之中的考察等。其中的英汉下义关系对比研究以及上下文之中的下义关系研究从不同侧面揭示了不同语言文化环境对于客观世界所采用的不同分类方式，以及人类语言和人类思维的相互关系。
本项研究具有下列理论意义与实用价值。其理论研究成果主要在于对下义关系采用了认知和语义的综合研究视角，提出了三级下义关系的研究模式，进行了下义关系对比分析，并对下义关系在不同语言结构之中的表现进行了认知和语义考察。在理论方面，本文提出人类认知的范畴化和概念化以及人类语言中的词义关系可以通过对下义关系的认知语义研究进行考察，从而揭示概念与语词的相互关系。其次，本文提出的三级下义关系是对下义关系的结构主义传统的补充和完善。它既保持了上义词和下义词的二分结构，同时突出了下义关系中各个层级的不同地位。这样也就确立了下义词在三级下义关系中的核心地位，并且和人类学中的民俗生物分类和命名，心理学中的基本层次范畴和原型理论，以及英汉语言对比的实证研究保持一致。在实践方面，不同文化中的语言选择次序可以在三级下义关系结构中得到认知和语义解释。例如，汉语使用者优先选择单音节汉字，因为汉字的部首具有分类组织的作用，在汉字的构字结构和汉语的下义关系结构中均占据着重要的地位。最后，我们的下义关系研究从词汇意义关系还延伸到词组、句子和语篇结构。对下义关系在不同上下文中的考察表明，下义关系可以出现在不同的语言结构之中。也就是说，不同的语篇结构可以运用下义关系进行认知和语义分析。
今后的下义关系研究需要进一步采用跨学科的综合研究视角，加强理论研究的深度和实证研究的广度。不仅要涉及词汇意义的纵聚合关系，还要涉及词汇意义的横组合关系。这样，我们对下义关系的研究就会取得更加全面的成果。
Hyponymy refers to a paradigmatic lexical sense relationship between a generalterm and a specific term. The dissertation is a systematic study of hyponymy from acognitive-semantic perspective.
The hyponymy-related notion can be surveyed in philosophy, cognitive science,and linguistics. Philosophically, the hyponymy-related notion dates back to Aristotlein terms of the relationship between the species 'man' and the genus 'animal'. Thisspecies/genus inclusion is echoed in Humboldt's philosophical investigation on thevariety of human languages and the intellectual development of human beings: man isborn with the tendency to classify concepts into categories of genus and species, so asto have a logically ordered human mind.
The philosophical investigation is interested in the relationship between thereference part of word meaning and what is referred to in the world, rather than thesense relations between words. The cognitive interest in hyponymy is related to thehuman cognitive pattern, by means of which human beings categorize andconceptualize the world (Rosch 1973, 1976, 1978, Berlin 1973, 1976, 1978, WordNet).The linguistic analysis of hyponymy, however, constitutes an important part of thelexical sense relations in the traditional investigation of structuralist lexical semantics,on a par with synonymy, antonymy and meronymy. Linguistically, hyponymy haslong been recognized as one of the constitutive principles in the vocabularyorganization of all languages. The hyponymy-related notion is found in Saussure(1959 [1915]) & also in Trier (1932, 1934). More recent systematic study of iexicalsemantics in more or less the same tradition can be read in Lyons (1968, 1977) onStructural Semantics, Lehrer (1974) on Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, Cruse(1986) on Lexical Semantics, Taylor (1996) on Linguistic Categorization: Prototypesin Linguistic Theories, and Pavlicic (a 2004 Columbia University PhD Dissertation)on The Organization of Verbs in Mental Lexicon.
Of all the established authors in the study of hyponymy, Lyons (1968: 453, 1977:291) is recognized as the first linguist to create the terms: 'hyponymy','superordinate' and 'hyponym'. And the notion of hyponymy as a vertical,paradigmatic relation of lexical sense that holds between a superordinate term and ahyponym and its co-hyponyms has been quickly accepted in linguistic analysis. Despite the great contributions made so far to linguistic study, there are somecontroversial issues to be clarified in the analysis of hyponymy. Firstly, there is nounanimous agreement on the direction of inclusion between the superordinate and thehyponym, i.e., whether the superordinate includes the hyponym, or vice versa.Secondly, the binary treatment of hyponymy into superordinate & hyponym termsmakes hyponymy a relative concept, as a hyponym in one hyponymy structure canbecome a superordinate in another, with the different status between various levels inthe hyponymy structure undifferentiated (or even neglected). Next, most of thehyponymy study is confined within a particular single language, without muchsystematic work done on a contrastive study between different languages. Finally,researchers seldom go beyond the lexical level in their study of hyponymy, to thehyponymy structures in supralexical contexts. The present dissertation is an attempt totackle these problems from a cognitive-semantic perspective.
The dissertation is organized into four major parts: a historical survey, a literaturereview, a theoretical investigation and a linguistic data analysis. The historical surveyclarifies the definition of hyponymy & it is consequently assumed that human beingshave essentially the same universal thought or concept, which is uniquely lexicalizedin word forms in different languages. Therefore it is expected that acognitive-semantic study of hyponymy could not only characterize the paradigmaticrelations of lexical sense, but also capture the nature and structure of theinterdependence between concept and sense.
The literature review is a survey of some major attempts in the study ofhyponymy in a number of disciplines, particularly structuralist approaches. Theyhave proved to be valuable in many aspects of linguistic studies, but more or lessimpracticable and not explicit enough to be applied to the study of hyponymy inlinguistic contexts. The theoretical investigation, therefore, is the development of atripartite division of hyponymy from a cognitive-semantic perspective. Thecognitively-motivated and semantically-based tripartite model of hyponymy provesto be a good mirror of the taxonomic status of human cognition, which representshow we bring order to the world by simplifying the overwhelming mass of information around us into hierarchically-organized categories.
The linguistic data analysis is a test of our three-level model of hyponymy inlanguage. The case study of hyponymy basically involves various types of hyponymyconcerning nouns, verbs and adjectives. A comparative study of the English andChinese hyponymy is also conducted, which shows how different cultures makesense of the world by categorizing information in different ways. And it also showssomething about how human languages and minds work in the process. Finally, ouranalysis of hyponymy goes beyond hyponymy on the lexical level and moves on tostudy hyponymy on other structural levels.
The major research findings in the present study on hyponymy can be broadlysummarized in term of the cognitive-semantic perspective in hyponymy study, thethree-level analysis of the hyponymy structure, the culture-specific preferences inhyponymy organization, and the behaviors of hyponymy in linguistic contexts.Theoretically, it is firstly assumed that the concept/word association could bedemonstrated in hyponymy, if it is studied in a cognitive-semantic perspective,incorporating our human cognitive categorization and conceptualization on the onehand, and the structuralist semantic sense relation on the other hand. Secondly, ourhyponymy triad complements the binary hyponymy in the structuralist tradition inthat it preserves the structuralist superordinate/hyponym division, and at the sametime reveals the different salience in the superordinate, hyponym and varietal levels.Practically, the tripartite hyponymy also accounts for the culture-specific preferencesin different languages, especially the Chinese speakers' preference of themonosyllabic characters and the category-marking radicals in the formation ofChinese characters. Last, the syntagmatic considerations of hyponymy (the basicallylexical sense relation) in context show that hyponymy constitutes a basic principle innot only vocabulary organization, but also discourse analysis.
It is therefore proposed that future studies on hyponymy should take an integratedapproach, incorporating all the available achievements in relevant disciplinary studies.And more serious attention should also be paid to the theoretical depth and empiricaladequacy of hyponymy analysis, so that both the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of lexical sense relations should be taken into our considerations in futurestudies, in order to yield a full, rather than partial, answer to the question ofhyponymy.
与下义关系相关的研究涉及哲学、认知科学和语言学。其在哲学领域的相关研究可以追溯到亚里士多德关于man和animal之间的种属包含关系。这种包含关系在冯堡特对于人类语言结构和精神发展的哲学研究中被认为是人类与生俱来的，即人类为了达到思维的条理严密，天生具有一种将不同概念分类成为种范畴和属范畴的本能。
对下义关系的哲学研究关注词汇意义的所指与客观被指称物之间的相互关系，而非词汇意义之间的相互关系。相关的认知科学研究则关注人类对客观世界的分类模式和认知结构，其中包括认知心理学中的范畴理论和原型结构(Rosch1973，1976，1978)，人类语言学中的民俗生物分类(Berlin 1973，1976，1978)，以及信息科学中的WordNet等。而对下义关系的语言学研究则是传统的结构主义词汇语义学对于包括同义关系、反义关系、下义关系、以及部分／整体关系等词汇意义关系研究的一项重要内容。对下义关系的语言学研究一直关注这种词汇意义关系在语言词汇结构中的作用，如索绪尔(1915)和特里尔(1932，1934)。这一与下义关系相关的语言学研究传统在当代对词汇语义学的系统研究有：《结构语义学》(Lyons 1968)，《语义学》(Lyons 1977)，《语义场和词汇结构》(Lehrer1974)，《词汇语义学》(Cruse 1986)，《语言的范畴化：语言理论中的类典型》(Taylor 1996)，《心理词汇中的动词结构》(Pavlicic 2004)等。
莱昂斯(1968：453，1977：291)是最早对下义关系命名和定义的语言学家。这种介于上义词和下义词及其共下义词之间的词汇意义纵聚合关系很快为语言学界所接受，并在语言分析中发挥了重要作用。然而，对下义关系的研究仍然存在一些有待于解决的问题。首先，在下义关系的包含方向上存在分歧，即上义词包含下义词，还是下义词包含上义词。其次，把下义关系分析成为上义词和下义词之间的二分结构使得下义关系成为一个相对的概念，导致了一个下义关系中的下义词可能成为另一个下义关系中的上义词。这样就混淆了下义关系结构中不同层级的地位差异。再次，大多数下义关系研究局限于某一单个语言内部，而缺少对不同语言进行对比研究。最后，下义关系研究一般只涉及词汇意义关系，很少扩大到词级以上的语言上下文之中进行考察。本论文是从认知和语义的视角对上述问题进行系统的分析。
论文共分四大部分：历史背景、文献综述、理论探索和语料分析。本文通过对相关历史背景的分析明确下义关系的基本定义，并对下义关系的研究提出了这样一个理论假设，即认知概念是人类共通的，并且以词的形式在不同语言中反映出来。因此，我们对下义关系的认知语义研究旨在系统考察词义的聚合关系，以及认知概念和词汇意义之间的相互关系。
文献综述主要分析不同学科针对下义关系现象所采用的研究方法和取得的研究成果。语言学研究中的结构主义研究方法尽管具有其理论和实用价值，但是在对不同语篇上下文中的下义关系研究却存在不足。本文中的理论探索部分就是运用认知和语义的研究视角对下义关系进行三级分类研究，这种基于认知和语义的三级下义关系研究模式对于下义关系现象中存在的语义传递和不规则等特点可以进行更加全面和充分的描写和解释。有充足的证据表明，该研究模式能够更好地反映人类认知的分类特点，即人类将纷繁复杂的客观世界简化为有组织的分类范畴，并对之进行有系统的范畴化和概念化。
本文的语料分析是针对三级下义关系研究模式的语料检测，包括对名词、动词、形容词等下义关系的分类，下义关系的英汉对比研究，以及下义关系在词组、句子、段落和语篇上下文之中的考察等。其中的英汉下义关系对比研究以及上下文之中的下义关系研究从不同侧面揭示了不同语言文化环境对于客观世界所采用的不同分类方式，以及人类语言和人类思维的相互关系。
本项研究具有下列理论意义与实用价值。其理论研究成果主要在于对下义关系采用了认知和语义的综合研究视角，提出了三级下义关系的研究模式，进行了下义关系对比分析，并对下义关系在不同语言结构之中的表现进行了认知和语义考察。在理论方面，本文提出人类认知的范畴化和概念化以及人类语言中的词义关系可以通过对下义关系的认知语义研究进行考察，从而揭示概念与语词的相互关系。其次，本文提出的三级下义关系是对下义关系的结构主义传统的补充和完善。它既保持了上义词和下义词的二分结构，同时突出了下义关系中各个层级的不同地位。这样也就确立了下义词在三级下义关系中的核心地位，并且和人类学中的民俗生物分类和命名，心理学中的基本层次范畴和原型理论，以及英汉语言对比的实证研究保持一致。在实践方面，不同文化中的语言选择次序可以在三级下义关系结构中得到认知和语义解释。例如，汉语使用者优先选择单音节汉字，因为汉字的部首具有分类组织的作用，在汉字的构字结构和汉语的下义关系结构中均占据着重要的地位。最后，我们的下义关系研究从词汇意义关系还延伸到词组、句子和语篇结构。对下义关系在不同上下文中的考察表明，下义关系可以出现在不同的语言结构之中。也就是说，不同的语篇结构可以运用下义关系进行认知和语义分析。
今后的下义关系研究需要进一步采用跨学科的综合研究视角，加强理论研究的深度和实证研究的广度。不仅要涉及词汇意义的纵聚合关系，还要涉及词汇意义的横组合关系。这样，我们对下义关系的研究就会取得更加全面的成果。
Hyponymy refers to a paradigmatic lexical sense relationship between a generalterm and a specific term. The dissertation is a systematic study of hyponymy from acognitive-semantic perspective.
The hyponymy-related notion can be surveyed in philosophy, cognitive science,and linguistics. Philosophically, the hyponymy-related notion dates back to Aristotlein terms of the relationship between the species 'man' and the genus 'animal'. Thisspecies/genus inclusion is echoed in Humboldt's philosophical investigation on thevariety of human languages and the intellectual development of human beings: man isborn with the tendency to classify concepts into categories of genus and species, so asto have a logically ordered human mind.
The philosophical investigation is interested in the relationship between thereference part of word meaning and what is referred to in the world, rather than thesense relations between words. The cognitive interest in hyponymy is related to thehuman cognitive pattern, by means of which human beings categorize andconceptualize the world (Rosch 1973, 1976, 1978, Berlin 1973, 1976, 1978, WordNet).The linguistic analysis of hyponymy, however, constitutes an important part of thelexical sense relations in the traditional investigation of structuralist lexical semantics,on a par with synonymy, antonymy and meronymy. Linguistically, hyponymy haslong been recognized as one of the constitutive principles in the vocabularyorganization of all languages. The hyponymy-related notion is found in Saussure(1959 [1915]) & also in Trier (1932, 1934). More recent systematic study of iexicalsemantics in more or less the same tradition can be read in Lyons (1968, 1977) onStructural Semantics, Lehrer (1974) on Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, Cruse(1986) on Lexical Semantics, Taylor (1996) on Linguistic Categorization: Prototypesin Linguistic Theories, and Pavlicic (a 2004 Columbia University PhD Dissertation)on The Organization of Verbs in Mental Lexicon.
Of all the established authors in the study of hyponymy, Lyons (1968: 453, 1977:291) is recognized as the first linguist to create the terms: 'hyponymy','superordinate' and 'hyponym'. And the notion of hyponymy as a vertical,paradigmatic relation of lexical sense that holds between a superordinate term and ahyponym and its co-hyponyms has been quickly accepted in linguistic analysis. Despite the great contributions made so far to linguistic study, there are somecontroversial issues to be clarified in the analysis of hyponymy. Firstly, there is nounanimous agreement on the direction of inclusion between the superordinate and thehyponym, i.e., whether the superordinate includes the hyponym, or vice versa.Secondly, the binary treatment of hyponymy into superordinate & hyponym termsmakes hyponymy a relative concept, as a hyponym in one hyponymy structure canbecome a superordinate in another, with the different status between various levels inthe hyponymy structure undifferentiated (or even neglected). Next, most of thehyponymy study is confined within a particular single language, without muchsystematic work done on a contrastive study between different languages. Finally,researchers seldom go beyond the lexical level in their study of hyponymy, to thehyponymy structures in supralexical contexts. The present dissertation is an attempt totackle these problems from a cognitive-semantic perspective.
The dissertation is organized into four major parts: a historical survey, a literaturereview, a theoretical investigation and a linguistic data analysis. The historical surveyclarifies the definition of hyponymy & it is consequently assumed that human beingshave essentially the same universal thought or concept, which is uniquely lexicalizedin word forms in different languages. Therefore it is expected that acognitive-semantic study of hyponymy could not only characterize the paradigmaticrelations of lexical sense, but also capture the nature and structure of theinterdependence between concept and sense.
The literature review is a survey of some major attempts in the study ofhyponymy in a number of disciplines, particularly structuralist approaches. Theyhave proved to be valuable in many aspects of linguistic studies, but more or lessimpracticable and not explicit enough to be applied to the study of hyponymy inlinguistic contexts. The theoretical investigation, therefore, is the development of atripartite division of hyponymy from a cognitive-semantic perspective. Thecognitively-motivated and semantically-based tripartite model of hyponymy provesto be a good mirror of the taxonomic status of human cognition, which representshow we bring order to the world by simplifying the overwhelming mass of information around us into hierarchically-organized categories.
The linguistic data analysis is a test of our three-level model of hyponymy inlanguage. The case study of hyponymy basically involves various types of hyponymyconcerning nouns, verbs and adjectives. A comparative study of the English andChinese hyponymy is also conducted, which shows how different cultures makesense of the world by categorizing information in different ways. And it also showssomething about how human languages and minds work in the process. Finally, ouranalysis of hyponymy goes beyond hyponymy on the lexical level and moves on tostudy hyponymy on other structural levels.
The major research findings in the present study on hyponymy can be broadlysummarized in term of the cognitive-semantic perspective in hyponymy study, thethree-level analysis of the hyponymy structure, the culture-specific preferences inhyponymy organization, and the behaviors of hyponymy in linguistic contexts.Theoretically, it is firstly assumed that the concept/word association could bedemonstrated in hyponymy, if it is studied in a cognitive-semantic perspective,incorporating our human cognitive categorization and conceptualization on the onehand, and the structuralist semantic sense relation on the other hand. Secondly, ourhyponymy triad complements the binary hyponymy in the structuralist tradition inthat it preserves the structuralist superordinate/hyponym division, and at the sametime reveals the different salience in the superordinate, hyponym and varietal levels.Practically, the tripartite hyponymy also accounts for the culture-specific preferencesin different languages, especially the Chinese speakers' preference of themonosyllabic characters and the category-marking radicals in the formation ofChinese characters. Last, the syntagmatic considerations of hyponymy (the basicallylexical sense relation) in context show that hyponymy constitutes a basic principle innot only vocabulary organization, but also discourse analysis.
It is therefore proposed that future studies on hyponymy should take an integratedapproach, incorporating all the available achievements in relevant disciplinary studies.And more serious attention should also be paid to the theoretical depth and empiricaladequacy of hyponymy analysis, so that both the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of lexical sense relations should be taken into our considerations in futurestudies, in order to yield a full, rather than partial, answer to the question ofhyponymy.
引文
Aitchison, Jean. 1994, Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental lexicon[M], 2nd edition, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Archibald, John. 1989, A lexical model of color space[J], in R. Corrigan, E Eckman and M. Noonan, Eds. Linguistic Categorization[C], John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 31-53.
Aristotle, 1938[1996], The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analyties[M]. Edited and Translated by H. P. Cooke, Harvard University Press.
Austin, Jane. 1966[1813], Pride and Prejudice[M], New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Berlin, B. 1976, The Concept of Rank in Ethnobiological Classification: Some Evidence from Aguaruna Folk Botany[J]. American ethnologist, 3: 381-399.
Berlin, B. 1978, Ethnobiological Classification[A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Cognition and Categorization[C], Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 9-26.
Berlin, B, Dennis Breedlove, Peter Raven. 1973, General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology[J]. American Anthropologist, 75: 214-242.
Berlin, B. and P. Kay, 1969, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution[M], Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1984[1933], Language[M], University of Chicago Press.
Brown, Cecil H. 1977, Folk Botanical Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth[J]. American Anthropologist, 79: 317-342.
Brown, Cecil H. 1979, Folk Zoological Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth[J]. American Anthropologist, 81: 791-817.
Brown, C. 1990, A survey of category types in natural language[A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge.17-47.
Brown, Roger. 1958. How Shall a Thing Be Called? Psychological review 65: 14-21. Reprinted in Psycholinguistics[M]. 1970 NY: The Free Press. 3-15.
Brown, Roger. 1965. Social Psychology [M]. New York: The Free Press.
Carroll, John B., Peter Davies, Barry Richman. 1971, The American Heritage: Word Frequency Book [M]. N. Y. American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc.
Casson, Ronald. Ed. 1981. Language, Culture and Cognition [M]. London: Macmillan.
Chen，H．W．[陈宏微]，1998，《汉英翻译基础》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Chen，W．D．[陈望道]，1979，《修辞学发凡》[M]，上海教育出版社．
Chomsky, Noam, 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M], The MIT Press.
Chu，B．J．[褚斌杰]，2001，《诗经》叠咏体探颐[A]，《诗经研究丛刊》第一辑[C]，中国诗经学会编，学苑出版社，181-191．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，1991，《语言哲学：从语言到思想》[M]，上海三联书店．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，1996，中国传统学术的知识形态[J]，中国文化研究 14：19-24．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2003a，试论语言科学的经验性基础[J]，学海 3：45-55．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2003b，中西语言学理论差异的思想根源[J]，社会科学 6：116-122．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2005，论西方语言学的哲学渊源[J]，复旦大学外文学院《外国语言文学论丛》春季号，85-89．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2006，《语言科学控源》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
CiHai，1979，《辞海》[M]，上海辞书出版社
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981, Prototype semantics: the English word LIE [J]. Language 57: 26-45.
Cruse, D. Allen. 1975, Hyponymy and lexical hierarchies [J]. Archivum Linguisticum (N.S.) 6: 26-31.
Cruse, D. A. 1977, The pragrnatics of lexical specificity [J], Journal of Linguistics 13,153-64.
Cruse, D. A. 1983, Review of A. Wierzbicka, Lingua Mentis: The Semantics of Natural Language [J]. Journal of Linguistics 19: 265-272.
Cruse, D. A. 1986, Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. 1990, Prototype theory and lexical semantics [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 382-403.
Cruse, D. A. 2000, Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics [M]. Oxford University Press.
Cruse D. A. 2001, The Lexicon, in Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.) The Handbook of Linguistics [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Crystal, David, 1997, A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (4th edition) [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Dickens, C. 2004 [1859], A Tale of Two Cities [M], New York, Barnes & Noble Classics.
Dougherty, J. W. D. 1978, Salience and Reality in Classification [J]. American Ethnologist, 5: 66-80.
Elissa L. Newport, 1978, Linguistic expression of category level in a visual-gesture language: a flower is a flower is a flower [A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, Eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Cognition and Categorization [C], Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Encyclopedia Americana [M], 1993, Grolier Incorporated.
ErYa，1999，《尔雅》注疏[M]，Li，X．Q．[李学勤]，《十三经注疏》整理委员会，北京大学出版社．
Fang，H．[方红]，2005，浅析英汉翻译中词汇的范畴转移[J]，齐齐哈尔大学学报 11：105-107．
Fellbaum, C. 1998, WordNet: an electronic lexical database [M], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Feng，Q．H．[冯庆华]，1997，《实用翻译教程》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Fillmore, C. J. 1975, An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In: C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler (eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C], Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 123-131.
Fillmore, C. J. 1977a, Topics in lexical semantics [A]. In: R. W. Cole, ed., Current issues in linguistic theory [C], Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press, 76-138.
Fillmore, C. J., 1977b, The case for case reopened [A]. In: P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, Eds, Syntax and semantics [C], Vol. 8: Grammatical relations, New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press, 59-81.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C], The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 111-137.
Fillmore, C. J., 1992, Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors [A]. In: Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts [C], Hillsdale/N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 75-102.
Foley, W. 1997, A. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Reprinted by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gao，Y[高玉]，2006，论古代汉语的“诗性”与中国古代文学的“文学性”——以《关雎》“今译”为例[J]，湖北大学学报1：85-92．
Geeraerts, D. 1988a, Where does prototypicality come from? [A]. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 207-231.
Geeraerts, D. 1988b, Cognitive grammar and the history of lexical semantics [A]. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 647-679.
Geeraerts, D. 1990, The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 195-211.
Givon, T. 1986, Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein [A]. In Craig, C. (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. 77-102.
Gu，Z．Q．[辜正坤]，2004，《互构语言文化学原理》[M]，清华大学出版社．
Guo，Y．K．[郭聿楷]，2005，范畴结构和基本范畴词语[J]，中国俄语教学，1：2-5．
Halliday M. A. K. and R. Hasan, 1976, Cohesion in English [M], Longrnan Group Limited.
Hardy, Thomas, 1959 [1874], Far From The Madding Crowd [M], New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc.
Heider, Eleanor R. and D. C. Oliver, 1972, The Structure of Color Space in Naming and Memory for Two Languages [J]. Cognitive psychology 3: 337-345.
Hu，S．G．[胡胜高]，2005，中西思维方式差异对语言的影响[J]，重庆工学院学报 2：137-140．
Hua，X．B．[华星白]，1994，汉字与汉语[J]，解放军外国语学院学报3：47-56．
Huang，J．X．[黄景欣]，1961，试论词汇学中的几个问题[J]，中国语文3：18-22．
Huang，W．X．[黄卫星]，2004，《诗经·关雎》比喻结构研究[J]，上海师范大学学报2：77-81．
Humboldt，W．V．[威廉·冯·洪堡特著，姚小平译]，1997，《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Hunn, Eugene, 1975, A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific Biological Classification [J]. American Anthropologist 2: 309-327.
Hunn, Eugene, 1976, Towards a perceptual model of folk biological classification [J]. American Anthropologist, 3: 508-524.
Hunn, Eugene, 1982, The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification [J]. American Anthropologist, 84: 830-847.
Jackendoff, R., 1983, Semantics and Cognition [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R., 1990, Semantic Structures [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R., 1997, The Achitecture of the Language Faculty [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Ji，S．J．[姬少军]，谈谈对上下义关系的理解[J]，现代外语，1992，1：38-39．
Jiang，S．Y[蒋绍愚]，1989，《古汉语词汇纲要》[M]，北京大学出版社．
Jiang，S．Y．[蒋绍愚]，1999，两次分类[J]，中国语文5：323-330．
Jin S．K．[金生奎]，《诗经 周南 关雎》中“流”、“螾”之通解[J]，南京社会科学，2004，2：88-91．
Katz, J. J. and Jerry A. Fodor, 1963, The structure of a semantic theory [J]. Language, 39: 170-210.
Kay, Paul, 1971, Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast [J], Language 47: 866-887.
Kempson, Ruth, M. 1977, Semantic Theory [M], Cambridge University Press.
Labov, William. 1973, The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English [C]. 340-373.
Lakoff, G. 1973, Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts [J]. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458-508.
Lakoff, G. 1982, Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics [A]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed) [C], Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 139-193.
Lakoff, G. 2005, Cognitive linguistics: what it means and where it is going [J].外国语．156: 2-22.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphor We Live By [M], Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 68-114.
Lang，C．[蓝纯]，2001，认知语言学：背景与现状[J]，外语研究3：14-20．
Langacker, R. W. 1987, Foundations of cognitive grammar [M], vol.1, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991, Foundations of cognitive grammar [M], vol.2, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Leech, G., 1983, Semantics, the study of meaning [M]. 2nd edition, revised and updated, Penguin Books.
Lehrer, Adrienne, 1974, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure [M], Amsterdam & London, North Holland.
Lehrer, Adrienne 1990, Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge. 368-381.
Lehrer, A, & E. F. Kittay, 1992, Frames, Fields, and Contrasts [M], Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Li，D．[李冬]，1987，下义关系的不规则性[J]，外国语3：8-11．
Li X. Y., 2005, A Tentative Study on the Acquisition Pattern of Chinese EFL Learners' Worm Knowledge [D], online MA thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Li，Y．M．[李玉梅]，2005，新结构主义观点下的词义网络关系[J]，中国民航学院学报5：50-64．
Li，Y．Y．[李贻荫]，1996，《诗经·关雎》的英译[J]，外语与外语教学5：16-21．
Liang，L．et al[梁丽，冯跃进]，2003，认知语言学中的基本层次范畴及其特征[J]，华中科技大学学报 社会科学版4：106-110．
Lin，X．G．[林杏光]，1991，论词义分类和词语搭配[J]，中国人民大学学报5：77-82．
Lin，Y．X．[林玉霞]，2001，语境中的横组合和纵聚合关系与翻译[J]，外语教学2：32-35．
Linguistics (Vol.27 (4), 1989), a special issue on "Prospects & Problems of Prototype"
Liu，C．N．[刘操南]，2003，《诗经探索》[M]，浙江大学出版社．
Liu，L．[刘伶]，1981，存在着”非语言”的思维吗?[J]，求是学刊2：14-19，70．
Liu，S．X．[刘叔新]，1990，《汉语描写词汇学》[M]，商务印书馆．
Liu，Y．K．[刘英凯]，1994，英语形合传统观照下的汉语意合传统[J]，深圳大学学报4：61-70．
Liu，Y．K．[刘英凯]，2003，英汉词汇上下义关系异同的多维分析[J]，深圳大学学报6：104-108．
Liu，Z．[刘茁]，2005，词汇化程度的英汉对比分析[J]，深圳大学学报4：113-117．
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,《朗文当代英语辞典》(第四版)，2004，[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社．
Lu，C．H．[卢彩虹]，2004，基本层次范畴的习得优先性[J]，齐齐哈尔大学学报，哲学社会科学版，9：96-98．
Lu，S．X．[吕叔湘]，2002[1947]，《中诗英译对比》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Lu，S．X．[吕叔湘]，1980，《语文常谈》[M]，北京：生活 读书 新知三联书店．
Lu，W．B．[陆文斌]，2003，上下义词在写作中的作用[J]，College English 10：34
Luo，Y．H．[罗永合]，1999，语义场理论在语言表达中的运用与理解[J]，解放军外国语学院学报3：19-21．
Lyons, J. 1963, Structural Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyons, J. 1968, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M], Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics [M]. Vol.1. Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics [M], Vol.2, Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Ma，B．Y．et al，[马秉义、陈维祥]，2006，“看”的音义联想及其汉英比较研究[J]，外语研究4：23-24
Macarthur, Tom. 1997, Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English (English-Chinese)[M]，Longman，上海外语教育出版社．
Malmkjaer, Kirsten, 2002, The Linguistic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) [M], Routledge.
Mao，H．et al[毛亨传，郑玄[汉]笺，孔颖达[唐]疏]，1999，《毛诗正义》(上)，[M]，北京大学出版社
Marconi, D. 1997, Lexical Competence [M], Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press.
Matthews, P. H. 2000 [1997], Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics [M]. Oxford University Press. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Miller, G. A. 1998, Nouns in WordNet [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexical database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 23-46.
Miller, K. J. 1998, Modifiers in WordNet [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexical database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 47-67.
Modern Chinese Dictionary．《现代汉语词典》[M]，1996，北京：商务印书馆．
Modern Classified Chinese-English Dictionary,《现代汉英分类词典》[M]，1984，台北阳明书局：博士出版社．
Murphy, M. Lynne, 2003, Semantic Relations and the Lexicon [M], Cambridge University Press.
Newport, Elissa L. and Bellugi, 1978, Linguistic expression of category level in a visual-gesture language: a flower is a flower is a flower [A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, Eds. Cognition and Categorization [C], Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: 52-70
Needham, Joseph, 1985, Chinese Plant Nomenclature and Its History [A|,载《中华文史论丛》[C]，第三辑：1-24．
Nida, E. A., 2001, Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating [M], Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press.
Nida, E. A. 2004, Toward a Science of Translating [M], Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ogden C. K. and I. A. Richards, 1923, The Meaning of Meaning: a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism [M], San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary [M], 4th edition, 1998, The Commercial Press, Oxford University Press.
Palmer, F. R., 1981, Semantics [M]. 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press.
Pan，W．G．[潘文国]，1997，《汉英语对比纲要》[M]，北京语言文化大学出版社．
Pan，W．G．[潘文国]，2002，《字本位与汉语研究》[M]，华东师范大学出版社．
Pavlicic, Tomislav, 2004, The organization of verbs in mental lexicon [D], retrieved online PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
Posner, M. I. 1986, Empirical studies of prototypes [A]. In Craig, C (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. 53-61.
Robins R. H. 2000 [1964], General Linguistics [M], Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Roget, Peter, M. 1962 [1834], Roget's International Thesaurus [M]. Third Edition, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc.
Rong，P．[榕培]，1988，关于英语词汇的分类关系[J]，外国语5：10-16／43．
Rosch, E., 1973a, Natural categories [J]. Cognitive psychology 4: 328-350.
Rosch, E., 1973b, On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories [A]. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language[C]. 110-144.
Rosch, E., 1975a, Cognitive reference points [J]. Cognitive psychology7: 532-547.
Rosch, E., 1975b, Cognitive representation of semantic categories [J]. Journal of experimentalpsychology, general 104: 193-233.
Rosch, E., 1975c, Universal and cultural specifics in human categorization [A]. In R. W. Brislia, S. Boshner, and W. J. Lonner (eds.), Cross-culturalperspectives on Learning [C], 177-206. New York, John Wiley.
Rosch, E., 1976, Structural bases of typicality effects [J]. Journal of experimental psychology, Human perception and performance 2: 491-502.
Rosch, E., 1977, Human categorization [A]. In: Neil Warren (ed.), Studies in cross-culturalpsychology [C], Vol. I, London: Academic Press, 1-49.
Rosch, H. E., 1978, Principles of categorization [A], In: Rosch, E. & Barbara B. Lloyd, (eds.), Cognition and Categorization [C], New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 27-48.
Rosch, E., 1988, Coherence and categorization: a historical view [A]. In: ES. Kessel (ed.), The development of language and language researchers, essays in honor of Roger Brown [C], Hillsdale/N. J., N. Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 373-392.
Rosch, E. & Barbara B. Lloyd, 1978, Cognition and Categorization [M], New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rosch, E., and Caroline B. Mervis, 1975, Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive psychology 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E., C. B. Mervis, W. D. Gray, D. M. Johnson, and P. Boyes-Braem, 1976, Basic Objects in Natural Categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382-439.
Saeed, John, I. 2000 [1997], Semantics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sapir, Edward, 1921 Language: an introduction to the study of speech [M], New York: Harcourt, Bruce and Company.
Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1959 [1915], Courses in General Linguistics [M], Translated from the French by wade Baskin, Peter Owen Limited.
Shen，J．X．[沈家煊]，1999，语法研究的分析和综合[J]，外语教学与研究1：1-7．
Shen，X．L．[申小龙]，2003，《汉语与中国文化》[M]，复旦大学出版社．
Shen，Y．Y．[沈译宜]，2000，《诗经新解》[M]，学林出版社．
Shi，A．S．et al[石安石，詹人凤]，1988，《语言学概论》[M]，高等教育出版社．
Shu，D．F．[束定芳]，2004，《语言的认知研究》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Taylor, J. R. 2001 [1995], Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tengi, R. I. 1998, Design and Implementation of the WordNet Lexical Database and Searching Software [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexicaI database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 106-127.
Thackeray, William, 1991, Vanity Fair [M], Beijing: World Publishing Corp.
The Holy Bible, New International Version [M], 1984 [1809], New Jersey: International Bible Society
The New Oxford Dictionary of English [M], 2001 [1998], Shanghai Foreign Languages and Education Press.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. 1990, A Few Untruths about "Lie" [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 438-446.
Tsohatzidis, S. L., 1990, Meaning and Prototypes, studies in linguistic categorization [M], London and New York: Routledge.
Ullmann, Stephen, 1977, Semantics, An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M], Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H. J. 1996 [2001], An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Vandeloise, C. 1990, Representation, prototypes, and centrality [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 403-438.
Wang，C．L[王彩丽]，2003，上下义词理论与大学英语教学[J]，苏州教育学院学报1：40-43．
Wang，H．W．[王宏维]，1988，论语言—思维现实三维连续区[J]，华中师范大学学报6：77-83．
Wang，J．[王军]，2003，《说文解字》的训释与双音合成词的内部语义关系[J]，河北师范大学学报4：112-116．
Wang，L．[王力]，1947，《中国语法理论》[M]，上海商务印书馆．
Wang，L．[王力]，1980，《汉语史稿》[M]，下册，中华书局．
Wang，L．[王力]，1983，语法的民族特点和时代特点[A]，王振昆、谢文庆、刘振铎编《语言学资料选编》[C]，上册，中央广播电视大学出版社．415-425
Wang，Q．Z．et al[王全智、赵卫红]，2001，意义关系再探讨[J]，外语学刊1：64-72．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2001，《语义理论与语言教学》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Wang，Y．[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．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2003，体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J]，哲学动态7：24-30．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2005，《认知语言学探索》[M]，重庆出版社．
Wang Y．et al[王寅、李弘]，2003，原型范畴理论与英汉构词对比[J]，四川外语学院学报，3：135-140．
Wang，W．H．[汪维辉]，2003，汉语“说类词”的历时演变与共时分布[J]，中国语文4：329-342．
Wang，W B．et al[王文斌、周慈波]，2004，英汉“看”类动词的语义及词化对比分析[J]，外语教学与研究6：412-419．
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [M], 1996, New Revised Edition, New York: Gramercy Books.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English language [M], 1976, G. & C. Merrian Company.
Wen，X．[文旭]，2003，词汇空缺的发现程序和认知理据[J]，四川外语学院学报 3：81-86．
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985, Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990, 'Prototypes save': on the uses and abuses of the notion of 'prototype' in linguistics and related fields [A] In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 347-368.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1984, Apples are not a "kind of fruit": the semantics of human categorization [J]. American Ethnologist 313-328.
Wierzbicka, 1996, Semantics: Primes and Universals [M], Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Witkowski, S. R. Brown, C. and P. K. Chase. 1981, Where do Tree Terms Come From? [J] Man, New Series, 16: 1-14.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations [M], Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Word Frequency Dictionary in Modern Chinese《现代汉语频率字典》[M]，1986，北京：北京语言学院出版社．
Wu，J．R．et al[吴景荣、程镇球]，2004，New Age Chinese-English Dictionary[M]，The Commercial Press．
Wu，Q．G．[伍谦光]，1988，《语义学导论》[M]，湖南教育出版社．
Wu，T．P．[伍铁平]，1986，《语言与思维关系新探》[M]，上海教育出版社．
Wu，T．P．[伍铁平]，1999，《模糊语言学》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Xiao，K．X．[肖坤学]，2005，试论词汇层面翻译的认知取向[J]．，外语与外语教学1：46-49．
Xiong，X．L[熊学亮]，1999，《认知语用学概论》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Xu，J．L．[许嘉璐]，1996，《尔雅》分卷与分类的再认识[J]，中国语文5：321-329．
Xu，S．[许慎](汉)，王贵元编著，2002，《说文解字》校笺[M]，学林出版社．
Xu，S．H．[徐盛桓]，1993，论词义的包含关系[J]．华南师范大学学报3：69-77．
Xu，Y C．[许渊冲](译)，1993，Book of Poetry,《诗经》[M]，湖南出版社．
Yan，C．S．[严辰松]，1990，汉语词汇透明度比较[J]，中山大学研究生学刊3：44-55．
Yan，C．S．[严辰松]，2002，论“字”对汉语词汇和语法的影响[J]，现代汉语3：231-240．
Yang，B．[杨必](译)，1957，《名利场》[M]，人民文学出版社．
Yang，J．M．[杨久铭]，1994，词义关系与句义关系[J]，解放军外语学院学报1：11-16．
Yang，X．Y[杨雪燕]，2001，英语泛指词的特点以及理解难点[J]，外语教学3：19-22．
Yang，S．[杨朔]，1984，《杨朔文集》[M]，山东文艺出版社．
Yang，Z．et al[杨忠，张绍杰]，1998，认知语言学中的类典型论[J]，外语教学现研究2：1-8．
Yao，T．S．et al[姚天顺等]，2001，WordNet综述[J]，语言文字应用1：27-32．
Ye，M．[野莽]and X．Y Yang[杨宪益]，2001，《诗经：汉英对照》[M]，北京外文出版社．
Yi，M．[易敏]，2000，在对译与比较中观察汉语词义系统[J]，北京师范大学学报 2：101-106．
Yie，B．X．[叶碧霞]，2004，英汉词义宽窄对比[J]，韶关学院学报，10：103-107．
You，Z．M．[尤正明]，2003，英语中承上启下的连接纽带[J]，上海师范大学学报5：
Yu，G．Y．[余冠英]，1956，《诗经选》[M]，人民文学出版社．
Yue，C．S．[岳长顺]，1991，下位词研究，《语言研究论丛》[J]，第六辑，天津教育出版．123-152．
Yuefushiji，《乐府诗集》(二)[M]，2003，[宋]郭茂倩编撰，北京：西苑出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2005a，原型理论对研究生英语教学的启示[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》春季号：192-198．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2005b，对原型的认知框架解析[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》秋季号：174-180．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2006，基本范畴和基本范畴词[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》春秋季号：131-137．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007a，从基本范畴到上位范畴[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007b，英汉下义关系对比研究[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007c，上下义和上下文[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007d，A cognitive-semantic study of hyponymy[J], manuscript.
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007e，《下义关系的认知语义研究》[M]，手稿．
Zhang，J．L．[张建理]，1995，汉英对比看汉语词汇的易读性[J]，浙江大学学报9：88-95．
Zhang，J．L．[张建理]，2001，语义包含关系及其传递性[J]，外语研究，1：55-58．
Zhang，J．L[张建理]，2005，英语视觉动词：概念的转换和彰显[J]，浙江大学学报6：161-169．
Zhang，R．F[詹人凤]，1997，《现代汉语语义学》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Zhang，J．W．[詹全旺]，2003，论词的横组合关系和纵聚台关系与英语写作[J]，安徽农业大学学报3：122-125．
Zhang，L．X．[张立新]，2005，词汇关联与阅读理解教学与测试[J]，南京航空航天大学学报，2：73-78．
Zhang，W．Y[张维友]，2002，《英语词汇学》[M]，外语教学与研究出版社．
Zhang，Y P．et al[张韵斐、周锡卿]，1986，《现代英语词汇学概论》[M]，北京师范大学出版社．
Zhao，Y R．[赵元任]，1975，汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A]，袁毓林主编《中国现代语言学的开拓和发展：赵元任语言学论文集》[C]，清华大学出版社．231-248．
Zhao，Y R．[赵元任]，1980，《语言问题》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Zhao，Y C．et al[赵彦春、黄建华]，2003，逻辑定义“属+种差”的适用度[J]，辞书研究6：106-115．
Zhou，C．z．[周昌忠]，1996，中西语言的形而上学比较[J]，学术月刊6：17-22．
Zhou，C．Z．[周昌忠]，1999，中西语言的语义学比较[J]，学术月刊1：30-35．
Zhou，J．S．[周建设]，1999，亚里士多德的语义理论研究[J]，首都师范大学学报3：20-27．
Zhou，W．D．[周文德]，1997，“趋”及趋礼[J]，山西大学学报1：18-24．
Zhu，C．[朱昌]，1986，语言与思维的不同特点[J]，上海师范大学学报4：118-125．
Zhu，X．[朱熹]，1987，《五经诗经集传》[M]，巴蜀书社．
Archibald, John. 1989, A lexical model of color space[J], in R. Corrigan, E Eckman and M. Noonan, Eds. Linguistic Categorization[C], John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 31-53.
Aristotle, 1938[1996], The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analyties[M]. Edited and Translated by H. P. Cooke, Harvard University Press.
Austin, Jane. 1966[1813], Pride and Prejudice[M], New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Berlin, B. 1976, The Concept of Rank in Ethnobiological Classification: Some Evidence from Aguaruna Folk Botany[J]. American ethnologist, 3: 381-399.
Berlin, B. 1978, Ethnobiological Classification[A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Cognition and Categorization[C], Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 9-26.
Berlin, B, Dennis Breedlove, Peter Raven. 1973, General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology[J]. American Anthropologist, 75: 214-242.
Berlin, B. and P. Kay, 1969, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution[M], Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1984[1933], Language[M], University of Chicago Press.
Brown, Cecil H. 1977, Folk Botanical Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth[J]. American Anthropologist, 79: 317-342.
Brown, Cecil H. 1979, Folk Zoological Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth[J]. American Anthropologist, 81: 791-817.
Brown, C. 1990, A survey of category types in natural language[A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge.17-47.
Brown, Roger. 1958. How Shall a Thing Be Called? Psychological review 65: 14-21. Reprinted in Psycholinguistics[M]. 1970 NY: The Free Press. 3-15.
Brown, Roger. 1965. Social Psychology [M]. New York: The Free Press.
Carroll, John B., Peter Davies, Barry Richman. 1971, The American Heritage: Word Frequency Book [M]. N. Y. American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc.
Casson, Ronald. Ed. 1981. Language, Culture and Cognition [M]. London: Macmillan.
Chen，H．W．[陈宏微]，1998，《汉英翻译基础》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Chen，W．D．[陈望道]，1979，《修辞学发凡》[M]，上海教育出版社．
Chomsky, Noam, 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M], The MIT Press.
Chu，B．J．[褚斌杰]，2001，《诗经》叠咏体探颐[A]，《诗经研究丛刊》第一辑[C]，中国诗经学会编，学苑出版社，181-191．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，1991，《语言哲学：从语言到思想》[M]，上海三联书店．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，1996，中国传统学术的知识形态[J]，中国文化研究 14：19-24．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2003a，试论语言科学的经验性基础[J]，学海 3：45-55．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2003b，中西语言学理论差异的思想根源[J]，社会科学 6：116-122．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2005，论西方语言学的哲学渊源[J]，复旦大学外文学院《外国语言文学论丛》春季号，85-89．
Chu，X．Q．[褚孝泉]，2006，《语言科学控源》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
CiHai，1979，《辞海》[M]，上海辞书出版社
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981, Prototype semantics: the English word LIE [J]. Language 57: 26-45.
Cruse, D. Allen. 1975, Hyponymy and lexical hierarchies [J]. Archivum Linguisticum (N.S.) 6: 26-31.
Cruse, D. A. 1977, The pragrnatics of lexical specificity [J], Journal of Linguistics 13,153-64.
Cruse, D. A. 1983, Review of A. Wierzbicka, Lingua Mentis: The Semantics of Natural Language [J]. Journal of Linguistics 19: 265-272.
Cruse, D. A. 1986, Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. 1990, Prototype theory and lexical semantics [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 382-403.
Cruse, D. A. 2000, Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics [M]. Oxford University Press.
Cruse D. A. 2001, The Lexicon, in Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.) The Handbook of Linguistics [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Crystal, David, 1997, A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (4th edition) [M], Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Dickens, C. 2004 [1859], A Tale of Two Cities [M], New York, Barnes & Noble Classics.
Dougherty, J. W. D. 1978, Salience and Reality in Classification [J]. American Ethnologist, 5: 66-80.
Elissa L. Newport, 1978, Linguistic expression of category level in a visual-gesture language: a flower is a flower is a flower [A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, Eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Cognition and Categorization [C], Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Encyclopedia Americana [M], 1993, Grolier Incorporated.
ErYa，1999，《尔雅》注疏[M]，Li，X．Q．[李学勤]，《十三经注疏》整理委员会，北京大学出版社．
Fang，H．[方红]，2005，浅析英汉翻译中词汇的范畴转移[J]，齐齐哈尔大学学报 11：105-107．
Fellbaum, C. 1998, WordNet: an electronic lexical database [M], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Feng，Q．H．[冯庆华]，1997，《实用翻译教程》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Fillmore, C. J. 1975, An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [A]. In: C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler (eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society [C], Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 123-131.
Fillmore, C. J. 1977a, Topics in lexical semantics [A]. In: R. W. Cole, ed., Current issues in linguistic theory [C], Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press, 76-138.
Fillmore, C. J., 1977b, The case for case reopened [A]. In: P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, Eds, Syntax and semantics [C], Vol. 8: Grammatical relations, New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press, 59-81.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C], The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 111-137.
Fillmore, C. J., 1992, Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors [A]. In: Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts [C], Hillsdale/N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 75-102.
Foley, W. 1997, A. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Reprinted by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gao，Y[高玉]，2006，论古代汉语的“诗性”与中国古代文学的“文学性”——以《关雎》“今译”为例[J]，湖北大学学报1：85-92．
Geeraerts, D. 1988a, Where does prototypicality come from? [A]. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 207-231.
Geeraerts, D. 1988b, Cognitive grammar and the history of lexical semantics [A]. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 647-679.
Geeraerts, D. 1990, The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 195-211.
Givon, T. 1986, Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein [A]. In Craig, C. (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. 77-102.
Gu，Z．Q．[辜正坤]，2004，《互构语言文化学原理》[M]，清华大学出版社．
Guo，Y．K．[郭聿楷]，2005，范畴结构和基本范畴词语[J]，中国俄语教学，1：2-5．
Halliday M. A. K. and R. Hasan, 1976, Cohesion in English [M], Longrnan Group Limited.
Hardy, Thomas, 1959 [1874], Far From The Madding Crowd [M], New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc.
Heider, Eleanor R. and D. C. Oliver, 1972, The Structure of Color Space in Naming and Memory for Two Languages [J]. Cognitive psychology 3: 337-345.
Hu，S．G．[胡胜高]，2005，中西思维方式差异对语言的影响[J]，重庆工学院学报 2：137-140．
Hua，X．B．[华星白]，1994，汉字与汉语[J]，解放军外国语学院学报3：47-56．
Huang，J．X．[黄景欣]，1961，试论词汇学中的几个问题[J]，中国语文3：18-22．
Huang，W．X．[黄卫星]，2004，《诗经·关雎》比喻结构研究[J]，上海师范大学学报2：77-81．
Humboldt，W．V．[威廉·冯·洪堡特著，姚小平译]，1997，《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Hunn, Eugene, 1975, A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific Biological Classification [J]. American Anthropologist 2: 309-327.
Hunn, Eugene, 1976, Towards a perceptual model of folk biological classification [J]. American Anthropologist, 3: 508-524.
Hunn, Eugene, 1982, The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification [J]. American Anthropologist, 84: 830-847.
Jackendoff, R., 1983, Semantics and Cognition [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R., 1990, Semantic Structures [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R., 1997, The Achitecture of the Language Faculty [M], Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Ji，S．J．[姬少军]，谈谈对上下义关系的理解[J]，现代外语，1992，1：38-39．
Jiang，S．Y[蒋绍愚]，1989，《古汉语词汇纲要》[M]，北京大学出版社．
Jiang，S．Y．[蒋绍愚]，1999，两次分类[J]，中国语文5：323-330．
Jin S．K．[金生奎]，《诗经 周南 关雎》中“流”、“螾”之通解[J]，南京社会科学，2004，2：88-91．
Katz, J. J. and Jerry A. Fodor, 1963, The structure of a semantic theory [J]. Language, 39: 170-210.
Kay, Paul, 1971, Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast [J], Language 47: 866-887.
Kempson, Ruth, M. 1977, Semantic Theory [M], Cambridge University Press.
Labov, William. 1973, The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English [C]. 340-373.
Lakoff, G. 1973, Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts [J]. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458-508.
Lakoff, G. 1982, Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics [A]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed) [C], Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 139-193.
Lakoff, G. 2005, Cognitive linguistics: what it means and where it is going [J].外国语．156: 2-22.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphor We Live By [M], Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 68-114.
Lang，C．[蓝纯]，2001，认知语言学：背景与现状[J]，外语研究3：14-20．
Langacker, R. W. 1987, Foundations of cognitive grammar [M], vol.1, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991, Foundations of cognitive grammar [M], vol.2, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Leech, G., 1983, Semantics, the study of meaning [M]. 2nd edition, revised and updated, Penguin Books.
Lehrer, Adrienne, 1974, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure [M], Amsterdam & London, North Holland.
Lehrer, Adrienne 1990, Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization[C]. London: Routledge. 368-381.
Lehrer, A, & E. F. Kittay, 1992, Frames, Fields, and Contrasts [M], Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Li，D．[李冬]，1987，下义关系的不规则性[J]，外国语3：8-11．
Li X. Y., 2005, A Tentative Study on the Acquisition Pattern of Chinese EFL Learners' Worm Knowledge [D], online MA thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Li，Y．M．[李玉梅]，2005，新结构主义观点下的词义网络关系[J]，中国民航学院学报5：50-64．
Li，Y．Y．[李贻荫]，1996，《诗经·关雎》的英译[J]，外语与外语教学5：16-21．
Liang，L．et al[梁丽，冯跃进]，2003，认知语言学中的基本层次范畴及其特征[J]，华中科技大学学报 社会科学版4：106-110．
Lin，X．G．[林杏光]，1991，论词义分类和词语搭配[J]，中国人民大学学报5：77-82．
Lin，Y．X．[林玉霞]，2001，语境中的横组合和纵聚合关系与翻译[J]，外语教学2：32-35．
Linguistics (Vol.27 (4), 1989), a special issue on "Prospects & Problems of Prototype"
Liu，C．N．[刘操南]，2003，《诗经探索》[M]，浙江大学出版社．
Liu，L．[刘伶]，1981，存在着”非语言”的思维吗?[J]，求是学刊2：14-19，70．
Liu，S．X．[刘叔新]，1990，《汉语描写词汇学》[M]，商务印书馆．
Liu，Y．K．[刘英凯]，1994，英语形合传统观照下的汉语意合传统[J]，深圳大学学报4：61-70．
Liu，Y．K．[刘英凯]，2003，英汉词汇上下义关系异同的多维分析[J]，深圳大学学报6：104-108．
Liu，Z．[刘茁]，2005，词汇化程度的英汉对比分析[J]，深圳大学学报4：113-117．
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,《朗文当代英语辞典》(第四版)，2004，[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社．
Lu，C．H．[卢彩虹]，2004，基本层次范畴的习得优先性[J]，齐齐哈尔大学学报，哲学社会科学版，9：96-98．
Lu，S．X．[吕叔湘]，2002[1947]，《中诗英译对比》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Lu，S．X．[吕叔湘]，1980，《语文常谈》[M]，北京：生活 读书 新知三联书店．
Lu，W．B．[陆文斌]，2003，上下义词在写作中的作用[J]，College English 10：34
Luo，Y．H．[罗永合]，1999，语义场理论在语言表达中的运用与理解[J]，解放军外国语学院学报3：19-21．
Lyons, J. 1963, Structural Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyons, J. 1968, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M], Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics [M]. Vol.1. Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics [M], Vol.2, Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Ma，B．Y．et al，[马秉义、陈维祥]，2006，“看”的音义联想及其汉英比较研究[J]，外语研究4：23-24
Macarthur, Tom. 1997, Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English (English-Chinese)[M]，Longman，上海外语教育出版社．
Malmkjaer, Kirsten, 2002, The Linguistic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) [M], Routledge.
Mao，H．et al[毛亨传，郑玄[汉]笺，孔颖达[唐]疏]，1999，《毛诗正义》(上)，[M]，北京大学出版社
Marconi, D. 1997, Lexical Competence [M], Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press.
Matthews, P. H. 2000 [1997], Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics [M]. Oxford University Press. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Miller, G. A. 1998, Nouns in WordNet [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexical database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 23-46.
Miller, K. J. 1998, Modifiers in WordNet [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexical database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 47-67.
Modern Chinese Dictionary．《现代汉语词典》[M]，1996，北京：商务印书馆．
Modern Classified Chinese-English Dictionary,《现代汉英分类词典》[M]，1984，台北阳明书局：博士出版社．
Murphy, M. Lynne, 2003, Semantic Relations and the Lexicon [M], Cambridge University Press.
Newport, Elissa L. and Bellugi, 1978, Linguistic expression of category level in a visual-gesture language: a flower is a flower is a flower [A], in Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, Eds. Cognition and Categorization [C], Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: 52-70
Needham, Joseph, 1985, Chinese Plant Nomenclature and Its History [A|,载《中华文史论丛》[C]，第三辑：1-24．
Nida, E. A., 2001, Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating [M], Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press.
Nida, E. A. 2004, Toward a Science of Translating [M], Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ogden C. K. and I. A. Richards, 1923, The Meaning of Meaning: a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism [M], San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary [M], 4th edition, 1998, The Commercial Press, Oxford University Press.
Palmer, F. R., 1981, Semantics [M]. 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press.
Pan，W．G．[潘文国]，1997，《汉英语对比纲要》[M]，北京语言文化大学出版社．
Pan，W．G．[潘文国]，2002，《字本位与汉语研究》[M]，华东师范大学出版社．
Pavlicic, Tomislav, 2004, The organization of verbs in mental lexicon [D], retrieved online PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
Posner, M. I. 1986, Empirical studies of prototypes [A]. In Craig, C (ed.) Noun Classes and Categorization [C]. 53-61.
Robins R. H. 2000 [1964], General Linguistics [M], Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Roget, Peter, M. 1962 [1834], Roget's International Thesaurus [M]. Third Edition, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc.
Rong，P．[榕培]，1988，关于英语词汇的分类关系[J]，外国语5：10-16／43．
Rosch, E., 1973a, Natural categories [J]. Cognitive psychology 4: 328-350.
Rosch, E., 1973b, On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories [A]. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language[C]. 110-144.
Rosch, E., 1975a, Cognitive reference points [J]. Cognitive psychology7: 532-547.
Rosch, E., 1975b, Cognitive representation of semantic categories [J]. Journal of experimentalpsychology, general 104: 193-233.
Rosch, E., 1975c, Universal and cultural specifics in human categorization [A]. In R. W. Brislia, S. Boshner, and W. J. Lonner (eds.), Cross-culturalperspectives on Learning [C], 177-206. New York, John Wiley.
Rosch, E., 1976, Structural bases of typicality effects [J]. Journal of experimental psychology, Human perception and performance 2: 491-502.
Rosch, E., 1977, Human categorization [A]. In: Neil Warren (ed.), Studies in cross-culturalpsychology [C], Vol. I, London: Academic Press, 1-49.
Rosch, H. E., 1978, Principles of categorization [A], In: Rosch, E. & Barbara B. Lloyd, (eds.), Cognition and Categorization [C], New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 27-48.
Rosch, E., 1988, Coherence and categorization: a historical view [A]. In: ES. Kessel (ed.), The development of language and language researchers, essays in honor of Roger Brown [C], Hillsdale/N. J., N. Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 373-392.
Rosch, E. & Barbara B. Lloyd, 1978, Cognition and Categorization [M], New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rosch, E., and Caroline B. Mervis, 1975, Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories [J]. Cognitive psychology 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E., C. B. Mervis, W. D. Gray, D. M. Johnson, and P. Boyes-Braem, 1976, Basic Objects in Natural Categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382-439.
Saeed, John, I. 2000 [1997], Semantics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sapir, Edward, 1921 Language: an introduction to the study of speech [M], New York: Harcourt, Bruce and Company.
Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1959 [1915], Courses in General Linguistics [M], Translated from the French by wade Baskin, Peter Owen Limited.
Shen，J．X．[沈家煊]，1999，语法研究的分析和综合[J]，外语教学与研究1：1-7．
Shen，X．L．[申小龙]，2003，《汉语与中国文化》[M]，复旦大学出版社．
Shen，Y．Y．[沈译宜]，2000，《诗经新解》[M]，学林出版社．
Shi，A．S．et al[石安石，詹人凤]，1988，《语言学概论》[M]，高等教育出版社．
Shu，D．F．[束定芳]，2004，《语言的认知研究》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Taylor, J. R. 2001 [1995], Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tengi, R. I. 1998, Design and Implementation of the WordNet Lexical Database and Searching Software [A], in C. Fellbaum, Eds. WordNet: an electronic lexicaI database [C], Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 106-127.
Thackeray, William, 1991, Vanity Fair [M], Beijing: World Publishing Corp.
The Holy Bible, New International Version [M], 1984 [1809], New Jersey: International Bible Society
The New Oxford Dictionary of English [M], 2001 [1998], Shanghai Foreign Languages and Education Press.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. 1990, A Few Untruths about "Lie" [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 438-446.
Tsohatzidis, S. L., 1990, Meaning and Prototypes, studies in linguistic categorization [M], London and New York: Routledge.
Ullmann, Stephen, 1977, Semantics, An Introduction to the Science of Meaning [M], Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H. J. 1996 [2001], An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Vandeloise, C. 1990, Representation, prototypes, and centrality [A]. In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 403-438.
Wang，C．L[王彩丽]，2003，上下义词理论与大学英语教学[J]，苏州教育学院学报1：40-43．
Wang，H．W．[王宏维]，1988，论语言—思维现实三维连续区[J]，华中师范大学学报6：77-83．
Wang，J．[王军]，2003，《说文解字》的训释与双音合成词的内部语义关系[J]，河北师范大学学报4：112-116．
Wang，L．[王力]，1947，《中国语法理论》[M]，上海商务印书馆．
Wang，L．[王力]，1980，《汉语史稿》[M]，下册，中华书局．
Wang，L．[王力]，1983，语法的民族特点和时代特点[A]，王振昆、谢文庆、刘振铎编《语言学资料选编》[C]，上册，中央广播电视大学出版社．415-425
Wang，Q．Z．et al[王全智、赵卫红]，2001，意义关系再探讨[J]，外语学刊1：64-72．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2001，《语义理论与语言教学》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Wang，Y．[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．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2003，体验哲学：一种新的哲学理论[J]，哲学动态7：24-30．
Wang，Y．[王寅]，2005，《认知语言学探索》[M]，重庆出版社．
Wang Y．et al[王寅、李弘]，2003，原型范畴理论与英汉构词对比[J]，四川外语学院学报，3：135-140．
Wang，W．H．[汪维辉]，2003，汉语“说类词”的历时演变与共时分布[J]，中国语文4：329-342．
Wang，W B．et al[王文斌、周慈波]，2004，英汉“看”类动词的语义及词化对比分析[J]，外语教学与研究6：412-419．
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [M], 1996, New Revised Edition, New York: Gramercy Books.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English language [M], 1976, G. & C. Merrian Company.
Wen，X．[文旭]，2003，词汇空缺的发现程序和认知理据[J]，四川外语学院学报 3：81-86．
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985, Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis [M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990, 'Prototypes save': on the uses and abuses of the notion of 'prototype' in linguistics and related fields [A] In Tsohatsidis, S (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization [C]. London: Routledge. 347-368.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1984, Apples are not a "kind of fruit": the semantics of human categorization [J]. American Ethnologist 313-328.
Wierzbicka, 1996, Semantics: Primes and Universals [M], Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Witkowski, S. R. Brown, C. and P. K. Chase. 1981, Where do Tree Terms Come From? [J] Man, New Series, 16: 1-14.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations [M], Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Word Frequency Dictionary in Modern Chinese《现代汉语频率字典》[M]，1986，北京：北京语言学院出版社．
Wu，J．R．et al[吴景荣、程镇球]，2004，New Age Chinese-English Dictionary[M]，The Commercial Press．
Wu，Q．G．[伍谦光]，1988，《语义学导论》[M]，湖南教育出版社．
Wu，T．P．[伍铁平]，1986，《语言与思维关系新探》[M]，上海教育出版社．
Wu，T．P．[伍铁平]，1999，《模糊语言学》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Xiao，K．X．[肖坤学]，2005，试论词汇层面翻译的认知取向[J]．，外语与外语教学1：46-49．
Xiong，X．L[熊学亮]，1999，《认知语用学概论》[M]，上海外语教育出版社．
Xu，J．L．[许嘉璐]，1996，《尔雅》分卷与分类的再认识[J]，中国语文5：321-329．
Xu，S．[许慎](汉)，王贵元编著，2002，《说文解字》校笺[M]，学林出版社．
Xu，S．H．[徐盛桓]，1993，论词义的包含关系[J]．华南师范大学学报3：69-77．
Xu，Y C．[许渊冲](译)，1993，Book of Poetry,《诗经》[M]，湖南出版社．
Yan，C．S．[严辰松]，1990，汉语词汇透明度比较[J]，中山大学研究生学刊3：44-55．
Yan，C．S．[严辰松]，2002，论“字”对汉语词汇和语法的影响[J]，现代汉语3：231-240．
Yang，B．[杨必](译)，1957，《名利场》[M]，人民文学出版社．
Yang，J．M．[杨久铭]，1994，词义关系与句义关系[J]，解放军外语学院学报1：11-16．
Yang，X．Y[杨雪燕]，2001，英语泛指词的特点以及理解难点[J]，外语教学3：19-22．
Yang，S．[杨朔]，1984，《杨朔文集》[M]，山东文艺出版社．
Yang，Z．et al[杨忠，张绍杰]，1998，认知语言学中的类典型论[J]，外语教学现研究2：1-8．
Yao，T．S．et al[姚天顺等]，2001，WordNet综述[J]，语言文字应用1：27-32．
Ye，M．[野莽]and X．Y Yang[杨宪益]，2001，《诗经：汉英对照》[M]，北京外文出版社．
Yi，M．[易敏]，2000，在对译与比较中观察汉语词义系统[J]，北京师范大学学报 2：101-106．
Yie，B．X．[叶碧霞]，2004，英汉词义宽窄对比[J]，韶关学院学报，10：103-107．
You，Z．M．[尤正明]，2003，英语中承上启下的连接纽带[J]，上海师范大学学报5：
Yu，G．Y．[余冠英]，1956，《诗经选》[M]，人民文学出版社．
Yue，C．S．[岳长顺]，1991，下位词研究，《语言研究论丛》[J]，第六辑，天津教育出版．123-152．
Yuefushiji，《乐府诗集》(二)[M]，2003，[宋]郭茂倩编撰，北京：西苑出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2005a，原型理论对研究生英语教学的启示[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》春季号：192-198．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2005b，对原型的认知框架解析[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》秋季号：174-180．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2006，基本范畴和基本范畴词[J]，《复旦外国语言文学论丛》春秋季号：131-137．复旦大学出版社．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007a，从基本范畴到上位范畴[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007b，英汉下义关系对比研究[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007c，上下义和上下文[J]，手稿．
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007d，A cognitive-semantic study of hyponymy[J], manuscript.
Zeng，J．B．[曾建彬]，2007e，《下义关系的认知语义研究》[M]，手稿．
Zhang，J．L．[张建理]，1995，汉英对比看汉语词汇的易读性[J]，浙江大学学报9：88-95．
Zhang，J．L．[张建理]，2001，语义包含关系及其传递性[J]，外语研究，1：55-58．
Zhang，J．L[张建理]，2005，英语视觉动词：概念的转换和彰显[J]，浙江大学学报6：161-169．
Zhang，R．F[詹人凤]，1997，《现代汉语语义学》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Zhang，J．W．[詹全旺]，2003，论词的横组合关系和纵聚台关系与英语写作[J]，安徽农业大学学报3：122-125．
Zhang，L．X．[张立新]，2005，词汇关联与阅读理解教学与测试[J]，南京航空航天大学学报，2：73-78．
Zhang，W．Y[张维友]，2002，《英语词汇学》[M]，外语教学与研究出版社．
Zhang，Y P．et al[张韵斐、周锡卿]，1986，《现代英语词汇学概论》[M]，北京师范大学出版社．
Zhao，Y R．[赵元任]，1975，汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A]，袁毓林主编《中国现代语言学的开拓和发展：赵元任语言学论文集》[C]，清华大学出版社．231-248．
Zhao，Y R．[赵元任]，1980，《语言问题》[M]，北京：商务印书馆．
Zhao，Y C．et al[赵彦春、黄建华]，2003，逻辑定义“属+种差”的适用度[J]，辞书研究6：106-115．
Zhou，C．z．[周昌忠]，1996，中西语言的形而上学比较[J]，学术月刊6：17-22．
Zhou，C．Z．[周昌忠]，1999，中西语言的语义学比较[J]，学术月刊1：30-35．
Zhou，J．S．[周建设]，1999，亚里士多德的语义理论研究[J]，首都师范大学学报3：20-27．
Zhou，W．D．[周文德]，1997，“趋”及趋礼[J]，山西大学学报1：18-24．
Zhu，C．[朱昌]，1986，语言与思维的不同特点[J]，上海师范大学学报4：118-125．
Zhu，X．[朱熹]，1987，《五经诗经集传》[M]，巴蜀书社．
© 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 |