英语论文网

nt analysis (Hu Zhuanglin & JiangWangqi, 2002: 293).Structural semantics refers to the well-established continental European traditionwhich has profoundly influenced semantic studies (Taylor, 2002: 49-60). Though itprovides an invaluable tool in explaining the semantic changes, it fails to giveprincipled explanation of polysemy structure.The cognitive linguistic approach to polysemy presents a new perspective on theresearch. It is characterized by experientialism, in which the importance of experienceis recognized together with the role of cognitive process.The cognitive view on language by Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 226) is regarded as“experiential realism or alternatively experientialism”. Lakoff (1987) attributes thephenomenon of polysemy to the principle of metaphorical mapping of image schema.In his network-style model, the meanings of a word are reduced to one centralmeaning, while its other meanings are believed to have evolved from the centralmeaning or as metaphorical meanings of the central one. Sweetser (1990: 8) alsopoints out that “polysemy derives from metaphorical usages, and therefore ourlanguage operating metaphorically”. Language is a part of cognition, thus withoutessential reference to cognitive processing, it is neither self-contained nor describable(Langacker, 1990: 1). New meanings of a polyseme are the result of the interactionbetween the cognitive abilities of human beings and the surroundings that they live in(Taylor, 2001). So to explain the semantic system we must “…refer to the physicalexperience formed through the interaction of human beings and the outside world, thehuman belief system and the open encyclopedic knowledge system” (Croft & Cruse,2004: 2).In China, some linguists have also studied polysemy from the perspective ofcognitive linguistics. According to Zhao Yanfang (2000: 36), cognitive linguisticsfocuses on the function of human cognition in the formation of senses, anddemonstrates that polysemy is a process in which a central sense or primitive senseextends to other senses with the help of human cognitive instrument such as metaphor,metonymy etc. and is the result of human cognitive categorization andconceptualization.

1.3 Studies on Body

 MetaphorsLanda (1996) compares body language metaphors between English and Spanish,the semantic features of human body parts can extend to distance and time conceptson the basis of the relationship between position and time. The relative position inhuman bodies can be reflected on metaphorical spatial orientationsHeine (1997) investigates in his article in Cognitive Foundation of Grammar, themethod of numeral and spatial systems of the structure of body words. Ning Yu (2000)discusses the metaphorical usage of “finger” and “palm” between English andChinese. Mette Kansa’s (2002) dissertation Body-Part Related Metaphors in Thai andEnglish compares the usage of body metaphors.Juliana Goschler (2005) uses body metaphors to testify the embodimentexperiences. Through investigation and analysis on science, media and everyday

1.4 Studies on “Hand” Metaphors

Feng Lingyu (2008) gives an explanation for the semantic extensions of bodylanguages from the cognitive linguistic view of metaphors on commonly-seen bodymetaphors like hands, heads, faces and feet. He points out the deep psychologicalbasis, and the motivation and approach of semantic extension of body languages.From 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。