Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies››2014,Vol. 14››Issue (09): 24-29.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.09.004
• Articles •Previous ArticlesNext Articles
WU Shuqiong, ZHANG Shaoquan
Online:2014-09-28Published:2020-07-25CLC Number:
WU Shuqiong, ZHANG Shaoquan. On the Cross-linguistic Study of Grammatical Metonymy[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 24-29.
| Barcelona, A. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. Peña (eds.).Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction[C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 313-52. Barcelona, A. 2011. The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish [A]. In M. Brdar (ed.).Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 151-78. Basilio, M. 2009. The role of metonymy in word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 99-109. Brdar, M. 2007.Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions[M]. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy. Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 259-74. Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.).Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 241-66. Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229-57. Brdar-Szabó, R. 2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives [A]. In K. Kövecses (ed.).Perspectives on Metonymy[C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 175-97. Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 323-36. Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003a. Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? [J].International Journal of English Studies3(2): 85-105. Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003b.The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages [J].Jezikoslovlje4(1): 43-69. Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2004. Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.).Studies in Linguistic Motivation[C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-55. Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2012. The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective [J].Language Sciences(34): 728-45. Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 275-89. Goossens, L. 1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 193-210. Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms [A]. In G. Radden (ed.).Aspects of Meaning Construction[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77-98. Imamoviü, A. 2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of -ion nominalizations [J].Jezikoslovlje(7): 45-65. Janda, L. A. 2011. Metonymy in word-formation [J].Cognitive Linguistics22(2): 359-92. Kövecses, Z. & G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J].Cognitive Linguistics(1): 37-77. Lakoff, G. 1987.Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. 1999.Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. 2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-71. Palmer, G., R. Rader & A. Clarito. 2009. The metonymic basis of a “semantic partial”: Tagalog lexical constructions with ka- [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 111-44. Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 385-99. Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.).Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast[C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-319. Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2003. Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French [J].Jezikoslovlje4(1): 71-101. Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2009. Introduction: On figuration in grammar [A]. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.).Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-44. Pérez, L. 2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality [A]. In K. Kosecki (ed.).Perspectives on Metonymy[C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 133-46. Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy [A]. In C. J. L. Otal,et al. (eds.).Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy[C]. de la Universitat Jaume I. 17-28. Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.).Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 223-39. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & J. L. Otal. 2002.Metonymy, Grammar and Communication[M]. Granda: Comares. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & L. Pérez. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction [J].Language and Communication21(4): 321-57. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & M. Peña. 2008. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish [A]. In M. de los A. G. Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. G. Álvarez (eds.).Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251-80. 高航.2008.认知语法与汉语转类问题[M].上海:开云网页登录 出版社. 黄洁.2008.汉英隐转喻名名复合词语义的认知研究[J].外语教学(4):25-29. 卢卫中.2008.汉语构词的转喻阐释[A].束定芳.语言研究的语用和认知视角[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社. 陆俭明.2011.语言研究需要不断探索和创新[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4):1-6. 潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社. 秦裕祥.2008.英语名词词组中前置修饰语使用限制的次范畴化解释[J].外语教学与研究(2):113-20. 沈家煊.1999.转指与转喻[J].当代语言学(1):3-15. 沈家煊.2000.句式和配价[J].中国语文(4):291-97。 谭业升.2011.转喻的图式及其例示的语言差异——以英汉名词动用为例[J].外国语文(3):53-58. 王冬梅.2001.现代汉语动名互转的认知研究[D].中国社会科学院研究生院. 王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社. 文旭.2009.以认知为基础的英汉对比研究——关于对比认知语言学的一些构想[J].中国外语(3):25-30. 吴淑琼.2013.基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社. 许余龙.1992.对比语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社. 许余龙.2009.对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考[J].外语教学与研究(4):279-83. 赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社. |
| [1] | Shenghuan XU, Qian LIU.The application ofCausal Implication Theory: Study of conversational implicature taken as an example[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 5-20. |
| [2] | Chaojun YANG, Gengqian YANG.The Syntactic Mechanism of the Indirect Meaning of the WXDY Construction[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 71-83. |
| [3] | LIU Longgen, ZHU Xiaozhen, HUO Wenjing.An Empirical Study on Chinese Advanced EFL Learners' Semantic Intuition about the Relationship of Literal Meaning with “What-Is-Said”[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 50-62. |
| [4] | XUE Xiaojiao, WANG Xiaonan, ZHOU Weijing.A Study on the Intelligibility of Chinese Learners' Productions of English /l/-/r/[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(02): 44-56. |
| [5] | YANG Yaping.The Revival of Ordinary Language Philosophy[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(01): 97-105. |
| [6] | QI Xi.To Argue and Persuade—the Debatable Standing inNew York TimesEditorials[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(03): 24-28. |
| [7] | XIAO Ruolin, WEI Naixing.A Corpus-based Contrastive Study of N that-cl Patterns in Research Articles by Chinese and Western Scholars[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(01): 34-41. |
| [8] | LI Dongmei.The Study of Language-related Genes FOXP2[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(11): 47-51. |
| [9] | WEN Xu.Political Discourse and Political Metaphors[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 11-16. |
| [10] | HE Mengyi.Ideology in Political Metaphor[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 17-23. |
| [11] | HUANG Shuguang.The Conceptual Prominence in Metonymy Operation[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 30-35. |
| [12] | WANG Ronghua.The “Two Eyes” of Metaphor: Integration and Complement of Conceptual Metaphor and Grammatical Metaphor[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 36-41. |
| [13] | XIE Nini.Review ofReading Visual Narratives[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 74-76. |
| Viewed | ||||||
| Full text |
|
|||||
| Abstract |
|
|||||
