臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

此篇論文寫作的動機「根源」於作者有鑑於英語學習者在理解隱喻用語時遭遇困難之擔憂，以及對於George Lakoff和Mark Johnson (1980)兩人在合著的Metaphors We Live By一書中強調隱喻用語充斥於日常生活中，以及Christopher Tilley (1999)所主張隱喻用語提供了對世界瞭解與詮釋的根據等理論深感興趣所致。作者選擇與人類關係最密切之一的中英文植物用語作為研究主題，探究它們之間的共通點與獨特點，並且藉由以語料庫與問卷為根據的實驗以獲知EFL學習者(英語作為外語)在理解這些植物隱喻用語時所遭遇的困難。
第一，作者使用中文平衡語料庫與英文Bank of English語料庫收集常用的中英文植物隱喻用語。 第二，計算語料裡植物隱喻用語的出現次數，並且從語法功能、概念聯結原則、概念隱喻等三方面對中英文加以比較。 第三，問卷一實驗的受試者是三十位台北市高三學生，他們必須以中文改寫十題有關英文植物隱喻用語的句子。 第四，問卷二實驗的受試者是來自同一所學校的另外五十六位高三學生，他們必須回答相同的十個問題，只是這次是選擇題加上一道自由表達意見的非選擇題。 第五，計算學生的答案，並且從EFL學習者在理解這些英文植物隱喻用語時所運用的策略與所遭遇的困難、以及他們對於瞭解植物隱喻用語所建議的協助等方面加以比較。
本論文研究中有關語料庫實驗部份量的分析之主要發現如下：
1. 常用的植物隱喻用語是有關植物基本層次或身體部位的用語，譬如英文裡的vegetable (菜) 與中文裡的根(gen)，而較少用的植物隱喻用語是有關植物次級層次的用語，譬如中文裡的蓮花與英文裡的laurel (桂冠)，因為後者比較具有文化特殊性。
2. 中英文植物隱喻用語兩者最常出現的次數皆以名詞詞彙居多(中文總平均48.6%，而英文71.6% )，最少出現的次數皆以副詞詞彙居多(中文總平均4.2%，而英文1.5% )。然而，中文植物隱喻用語長出現在於四字成語或固定用語而且可以有其他的組合，其變化性較英文植物隱喻用語高。而英文植物隱喻用語可以衍生字彙，譬如rootless。
3. 中英文的植物隱喻用語有相似的聯結概念，有四個相同的概念隱喻用語：人類猶如植物、物品猶如植物、想法猶如植物、有組織之事物猶如植物或事件猶如植物，此即隱喻用語之共通性。然而，中文以物品猶如植物居多(48.5%)，英文以有組織之事物如植物居多(58.5%)，而且其中差異甚大，分別為33.5%和23.8% 。
4. 中英文的植物隱喻用語最常的聯結原則皆是「作用像…」(中文55.0%，英文47.2%)‚而中文語料中聯結原則是「形狀像…」者(36.0%)較英文(9.8%)為多，相差26.8%。
5. 另一方面，中英文的植物用語也有其各自的文化獨特性，有些英文植物用語源自於神話、聖經、寓言故事等，而有些中文植物用語源自於其文化本身。有些植物用語之搭配語可依上下文文意而富有彈性或創意，而有些固定的植物用語之用法很嚴謹且設限。大致而言，植物用語之選用決定於個人喜好或方言之變異。
其次，本論文研究中有關問卷實驗部份質的分析之主要發現如下：
1. 這些植物用語對受試者而言有困難，尤其是那些含有特殊文化背景的植物用語，例如 olive branch (橄欖樹枝) ，它意謂和平，但中文裡沒有與之對等的植物隱喻用語。
2. 受試者大多運用「應用現有的概念」以理解他們以前未曾學過或學過但是遺忘的隱喻用語。
3. 75%高比例的的受試者建議在高中的課外讀物裡能多接觸隱喻用語，因為隱喻用語很常見且對於文意之理解很重要。
根據本論文有關中英文植物隱喻用語的共通點和獨特點、理解困難與策略、與EFL學習者有關英語隱喻教學的意見，作者提出對英語教學與隱喻用語的省思，希望未來有更多研究投入此行列，也希望英語教與學之樹能發出新葉，綻放美麗的花朵。

The study is rooted in the author’s worries about EFL learners’ difficulties in comprehending metaphorical expressions and the interest in the theory of George Lakoff, & Mark Johnson’s (1980) Metaphors We Live By, which suggests that metaphors prevail in everyday language, and Christopher’s (1999) concept that metaphor provides the basis for an interpretative understanding of the world. The author chose Chinese and English plant metaphors, one of the metaphorical expressions most related to humans, as the main topic, surveyed the universality and relativity between them and probed into EFL learners’ difficulties in comprehending such expressions through corpus-based and questionnaire-based experiments.
First, the Chinese Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus and Bank of English corpus were employed to collect the commonly used plant metaphorical expressions. Second, the frequencies of the data were computed and the comparisons between both languages were made in terms of syntactic functions, conceptual mapping principles, and conceptual metaphors. Third, 30 third-graders from a senior high school in Taipei took part in Questionnaire One to paraphrase ten English questions with plant metaphors in Chinese sentences. Fourth, another 56 third-graders from the same senior high school participated in Questionnaire Two to answer the same ten questions but with multiple choices and one more question of free opinions. Fifth, the students’ responses to the questions were computed and the comparisons between both the languages were made in terms of EFL students’ strategies and difficulties in comprehending English plant metaphors, and the aids the learners suggested to comprehend metaphorical expressions.
The major findings from the quantitative analysis of the corpus-based experiment are as follows.
1. The commonly used plant metaphors were those categorized as basic-level or body-part metaphors, such as vegetable in English, and gen in Chinese, and the less often used were those categorized as sub-categories, such as Lian-hua 蓮花in Chinese and laurel in English because the latter are more culture-specific.
2. The highest total average occurrence for both Chinese and English plant metaphorical expressions are in the nominal lexemes (48.6% for Chinese and 71.6% for English), and the least percentages are both Adv P (4.2% in average for Chinese and 1.5% for English). However, Chinese plant metaphors often appear in Chinese four-word idioms or phrases and some fixed or conventional expressions, and they are mostly productive in some compounds and vary much more than English metaphors. English plant metaphors can derive words, such as rootless.
3. Both Chinese and English languages have some similar conceptual ideas of plant terms, namely, the same four kernel conceptual metaphors: PEOPLE AS PLANTS, IDEAS AS PLANTS, OBJECTS AS plants, and ORGANIZED THINGS AS PLANTS, which are referred to as the universality of metaphor. However, Chinese focuses on OBJECTS AS PLANTS (48.5%) and English focuses on ORGANIZED THINGS AS PLANTS (58.5%), and the differences between them are quite large up to 33.5% and 23.8% respectively.
4. The highest rate of both English (47.2%) and Chinese (55.0%) corpus data are mapped based on the mapping principle of “functioning like..” The Chinese corpus data (36.0%) are mapped much more on the mapping principle of “shaped like…” than those of English (9.8%) by 26.8%.
5. On the other hand, there is also the relativity of metaphor in both languages on a cultural basis. Some of the English metaphors originated from the illusions of mythology, the Bible, the fables, etc., and some of the Chinese metaphors originated from its literature. Some metaphorical collocations are flexible and creative according to the context or the language user, and some fixed expressions are very rigid and hence limit its occurrence with other structures. The choice of these expressions is sometimes dependent on individual preference or dialectal variations.
Also, the major findings from the qualitative analysis of the questionnaire-based experiment are as follows
1. The plant metaphorical expressions were quite difficult for the subjects, especially those metaphors with a special cultural basis, such as “olive branch,” which means “peace” and has no parallel metaphorical expression.
2. Most of the subjects used the strategy “applying preexisting concepts” to comprehend the metaphors that they had never learned or learned but forgot.
3. 75% of the subjects suggested having more contact with metaphorical expressions in senior high school outside readings, since metaphoric expressions are prevalent and essential in literary comprehension.
According to the findings of the universality and relativity of Chinese and English plant metaphors, comprehension difficulties and strategies, and the suggestions from the Chinese EFL learners about metaphor teaching, the author identified some implications for English teaching. With the knowledge of metaphorical expressions related to plants, the author hopes to inspire more successive research in the future and make the tree of English teaching and learning turn over a new leaf and have blossoms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i
Chinese Abstract iii
English Abstract v
Table of Contents viii

Chapter One: Introduction

Motivation 2
Definition 3
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Organization 7

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Classical Views on Metaphor .9
Substitution View 9
Comparison View .10
Interaction View 11
Contemporary Views on Metaphor 12
Cognitive Linguistic View on Metaphor and Conceptual Metaphor 12
Conceptual Metaphor 13
Image Schema 17
Meaning Extension 18
Prototype 18
Radial Structure 19
Family Resemblance 19
Mapping Principles 19
Functions of Metaphor 20
Cultural Basis of Metaphor: Universality and Relativity 21
Cross-Cultural Variation in Conceptual Metaphor 21
Cultural Basis of Plant Metaphors 22
Comprehension of Metaphor 23
Factors Involved in Metaphor Comprehension .24

Chapter Three: Methodology

Experiment One: Corpus-Based Approach 27
Instruments 29
Chinese Corpus. 29
English Corpus. 30
Procedures. 31
Experiment Two: Questionnaire Research. 33
Part One 33
Subjects 33
Instruments 33
Procedures 34
Part Two 35
Subjects 35
Instruments 35
Procedures 36
Summary of Chapter Three 39

Chapter Four: Results and Contrastive Analyses of Corpus Data

Results 41
Occurrence Frequency 42
Chinese and English Corpus Data 42
Comparison of Occurrence Frequencies between Corpuses 43
Metaphorical Syntactic Functions 44
Chinese Corpus Data. 45
English Corpus Data 47
Comparison of Syntactic Functions between Corpuses 50
Conceptual Mappings. 51
Chinese Corpus Data. 52
English Corpus Data. 56
Comparison of Mapping Principles between Corpuses. 59
Comparison of Conceptual Metaphors between Corpuses 61
Contrastive Analyses. 62
General Preview of Chinese and English Plant Metaphors. 63
Universality of Chinese and English Plant Metaphors. 66
Syntactic Functions 66
Conceptual Mapping Principles 67
Conceptual Metaphors 69
Relativity of Chinese and English Plant Metaphors 73
Syntactic Functions 74
Conceptual Mapping Principles. 75
Conceptual Metaphors 76
Culture-Specific 77
Summary of Chapter Four 79

Chapter Five: Results and Discussion Based on Questionnaire Data

Results 83
Frequency Statistics of the Data Collected from Questionnaire Two 85
Suggestions on Aids Needed in Metaphor Learning 86
Analyses 88
Familiarity of the Plant Metaphors 88
Extent of Difficulty in Comprehending Plant Metaphors 90
Comprehension Strategy 92
Correlations among Correctness of Paraphrasing, Familiarity, Difficulty Rating,
and Comprehension Strategy 95
Summary of Chapter Five 97

Chapter Six: Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions

Major Findings of the Study 99
Implications 102
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies 103

Conclusion of this Study 104

References 105
Appendices
Appendix 1: Possible Categorization of Plants in Chinese and English. 112
Appendix 2: General Metaphorical Plant Terms in Chinese. 113
Appendix 3: Plant Metaphors in Chinese Based on Basic-Level Categories 114
Appendix 4: Plant Metaphors in Chinese Based on Subcategories. 119
Appendix 5: Plant Metaphors in Chinese Based on Body-Part Categories 125
Appendix 6: Plant Metaphors in Chinese Based on Growth-Process Categories.. 127
Appendix 7: General Metaphorical Plant Terms in English. 128
Appendix 8: Plant Metaphors in English Based on Basic-Level Categories 129
Appendix 9: Plant Metaphors in English Based on Subcategories 130
Appendix 10: Plant Metaphors in English Based on Body-Part Categories. 135
Appendix 11: Plant Metaphors in English Based on Growth-Process Categories 136
Appendix 12: Questionnaire One. 137
Appendix 13 Questionnaire Two 139
Appendix 14 Frequency of Gen Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions. 144
Appendix 15 Frequency of Hua Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions 144
Appendix 16 Frequency of Yeh Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions 145
Appendix 17 Frequency of Tsai Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions 145
Appendix 18 Frequency of Shu Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions 146
Appendix 19 Frequency of Mu Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions. 146
Appendix 20 Frequency of Chih Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions 147
Appendix 21 Frequency of Ching Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Syntactic Functions. 147
Appendix 22 Frequency of Root Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions. 148
Appendix 23 Frequency of Flower Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions 149
Appendix 24 Frequency of Leaf Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions 150
Appendix 25 Frequency of Vegetable Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions. 150
Appendix 26 Frequency of Tree Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions. 151
Appendix 27 Frequency of Branch Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions. 151
Appendix 28 Frequency of Stem Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BoE Based on Syntactic Functions. 152
Appendix 29 Frequency of Gen Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings 152
Appendix 30 Frequency of Hua Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings. 153
Appendix 31 Frequency of Yeh Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings 153
Appendix 32 Frequency of Tsai Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings. 154
Appendix 33 Frequency of Tree Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings 154
Appendix 34 Frequency of Mu Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings. 155
Appendix 35 Frequency of Chih Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings 155
Appendix 36 Frequency of Ching Metaphoric Expressions in Chinese Corpus ASBC Based on Conceptual Mappings. 156
Appendix 37 Frequency of Root Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 156
Appendix 38 Frequency of Flower Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 157
Appendix 39 Frequency of Leaf Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 158
Appendix 40 Frequency of Vegetable Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 159
Appendix 41 Frequency of Tree Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 159
Appendix 42 Frequency of Branch Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings. 160
Appendix 43 Frequency of Stem Metaphoric Expressions in English Corpus BofE Based on Conceptual Mappings 161
Appendix 44 Statistics of Paraphrasing Results from Questionnaire One 162
Appendix 45 Results Collected from Questionnaire Two 163

English
Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Gerrig, R. J. 1995. Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 612-625.
Apter, T.E. 1982. Fantasy Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Artunano, Iraide Ibarretxe. 2002. MIND-AS-BODY as a Cross-linguistic Conceptual Metaphor; Miscelanea : Journal of English and American Studies, 03-119
Asher, R.E., & J.M.Y. Simpson, (Ed.). 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Atwater, Eastwood. 1996. Adolescence. Indiana: Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference
Bank of English (English corpus). http://www.titania.bham.ac.uk/docs/svenguide.html
Black, Max. 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1984. Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.
Butler, H.E. (Transl) 1921. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian, vol. 3, London: Cambridge, Mass.
Byram, Michael, (Ed.). 2000. Routledge of Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.
Carroll, David W. 1994. Psychology of Language. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Chen, Shu-Ting. 1999. Conceptual Structure and Lexicalization Patterns of Manual Verbs in Taiwanese. Ching Hua University Graduate Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Chen, Yu-shiu. 1995. A Semantic Study of Animal Metaphors in Mandarin and Taiwanese. M.A. Thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University Graduate Institute of Linguistics.
Cheng, Li-chuan. 1999. The Metonymy and Metaphor of Anger Expressions in English and Chinese. Fu Jen Catholic University Graduate Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, Timothy C., & William Croft. 1997. Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247-282.
Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic Leaps. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro, (Ed.). 2001. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Evola, Vito. 2005. Cognitive Semiotics and On-Line Reading of Religious Texts: A Hermeneutic Model of Sacred Literature and Everyday Revelation. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts Archive. University of Palrrmo.
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., and McGlone, M. S. 1992. Metaphor understanding and accessing conceptual schema: Reply to Gibbs (1992).Psychological Review, 99, 578-581.
Glucksberg, S., and Keysar, B. 1993. How metaphors work.In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed, pp. 401-424).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. 1995. Understanding Idioms: Do Visual Images Reflect Figurative Meanings? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7(3), 283-305.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole. P. and Morgan. J. L. (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Harris, Roy. 1980. The Language-Makers. Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Harris R.J., Lahey, M.A. & Marsalek, F. 1980. Metaphors and images: Rating, reporting and remembering. In R.P. Honeck and R.P. Hoffman (Eds.) Cognition and Figurative Language, New Jersey: Erlbaum Press
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike, Hunnemeyer, 1991. Grammatization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hong, Yu-fen. 1999. Chinese Food Metaphor and Chinese Culture. Fu Jen Catholic University Graduate Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Huang, Han-Chun. 1998. Lexical Polysemy and Sense Extension in Verbs of Movement in Taiwanese Southern Min. Tsing Hua University Graduate Institute of Linguistics.
Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. (Tr.). Guyer and Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press
Labov,. William.1973. The boundaries of words and their meaning. In Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shay (Eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. 340-373. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1994. What is a conceptual system? In Willis F. Overton and David S. Palermo (Eds.) The Nature and the Ontogenesis of Meaning. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 41-90.
Langacker, Ronald W.. 1986. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lewis, Nigel. 1994. The Book of Babel: Words and the Way We See Things. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Liven, S. 1977. The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopins University Press.
Liu, Chen-chen. 2000. A Developmental Study of Color Association. Fu Jen Catholic University Graduate Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Liu, Hsiu-ying. 1997. Body-Part Metaphors and Cultural Difference: Chinese vs. English. M.A. Thesis, Tsing Hua University Graduate Institute of Linguistics.
Murphy, G. L. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60(2), 173-204
Nuyts, Jan, & Eric Pederson (Eds.). 1997. Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony. A. 1975. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Reprinted in M. J. Ganon, (Ed.) Cultural metaphors: Readings, research translations, and commentary. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications
Ortony, Andrew, ed. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, Andrew. 1980. Metaphor. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pexman, P., T. Ferretti, & A.N. Katz. 2000. Discourse factors that influence on-line reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes 29: 201-222
Quinn, Naomi. 1991. The cultural basis of metaphor, in Fernandez. J. E. (Ed.). Beyond Metaphor : The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. Illinois: Stanford University Press
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-232
Stadler, Leon de, & Christoph Eyrich, (Eds.). 1993. Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference.
Sommer, Elyse, & Dorrie Weiss, (Eds.). 1995. Metaphors Dictionary. New York: Gale Research Inc.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, Eve. 1995. Metaphor, Mythology, and Everyday Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 585-593.
Tilley, Christopher. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. London: Blackwell Publishing.
Tsai, Li-Chung. 1994. The Metaphor of Body-parts in Chinese. National Tsing Hua University Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Published originally in Russian in 1934.
Wahab, Abdul. 1986. Japanese Metaphors in Discourse Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana-Champaign: Illinois University Press.
Wilkinson, P.R.. 2002. Thesaurus of Traditional English Metaphors. New York: Routledge.
Winner, Ellen. 1988. The Points of Words: Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. G. E.M. Anscombe (Transl.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yen, Chao Tai. 2000. A Semantic Study of Chinese Metaphors Derived from Visual Perception. Fu Jen Catholic University Graduate Institute of Linguistics M.A. Thesis.
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 10(2), 59-92.
Yu, Ning. 1996. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zhung, Feng Ya. 2002. A Semantic Study of Mandarin Perception Verbs Kan, Ting, and Wen. National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of English M.A. Thesis.


Chinese
中央研究院平衡語料庫。網址：http:/www.sinica.edu.tw/ftmsbin/kiwi.sh
王伯怡。1984。英文成語的奧秘。台北市：學英文化。
吳友富。1998。國俗語義研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
吳正吉。2000。活用修辭。高雄；復文圖書出版社。
宋惠貞。2001。政治文宣的隱喻－西元兩千年。
東定芳。1996。『試論現代隱喻學的研究目標、方法和任務』。語言文字學。第7期，14-21。
施正信、王春菁、張健鍾。1992。漢英分類成語辭典。台北市：旺文社。
唐樞。2000。成語熟語辭海。台北市：五南出版社。
徐淑瑛。2000。中文裡的聯覺詞：知覺隱喻與隱喻延伸。國立中正大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
陳建文、王聚元。漢語戲謔語詞典。上海：上海人民出版社。
植物動物與民俗。1999。阮昌銳編。台北：國立台灣博物館。
逸群公司中國文字叢書編輯組。1984。中國文字學故事大辭典。台北市：逸群圖書。
馮廣藝。2002。漢語比喻研究史。湖北：湖北教育出版社。
齊玉。1993。英文諺語格言100句。台北市：三民書局。
鄭炎昌、劉海清。1989。語言與文化。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。
劉兆祐。1986。超群國語字典。台北：南一出版社。
黎明、林太乙。1987。最新林語堂漢英詞典。香港：大盛出版社。
韓明安。1992。新語詞大詞典。哈爾濱：黑龍江人民出版社。
羅亞平、王華英。1993。英語典故精選。湖北：湖北教育出版社。
關紹箕。1993。實用修辭學。台北：遠流出版社。
缪天華。1989。新語詞大詞典。台北市：復興書局。