当代香港语言教育讨论-成功大学.DOCVIP

Cognitive Models of Using Animal and Plant Metaphors (16-point, bold, centered) (two-line space) Shelley Ching-yu Hsieh(14-point, bold, centered) (one-line space) National Cheng Kung University (two-line space) Abstract(12-point, bold, centered) This article compares animal and plant metaphors to show the semantic autonomy of language and the cognitive level of using these metaphors in light of lay views vs. scientific theories (K?vecses 2000) and verbal processes (Halliday 1985). We found that (1) metaphors are not scientific, (2) but the essence of metaphors and nature seems to overlap: in the natural world, animals are moving creatures while plants are motionless life forms; (3) in our languages, animal metaphors are active expressions whereas plant metaphors are static. Language makes good use of natural species via mappings from bodily experiences. Based on this research, we review cognitive scientists’ approaches at the end. (10-point, indent 6 spaces left and right) (one-line space) Keywords: cognitive linguistics, verbal process, animal metaphors, plant metaphors (three-line space) 1. Introduction(level 1 heading: 13-point, bold) Lakoff (1987: 221) argues that metaphors become conventionalized through repeated use. They become central to cognition through framing the abstract in terms of the concrete. In Lakoff’s view, metaphor exists at a deeper generating level than other linguistic expressions. Can this level be located more precisely? On the other hand, K?vecses (2000: 27) contends that metaphors which express emotion are stable through time. K?vecses, however, does not provide a rationale to explain why these metaphors are resistant to diachronic change…. (one-line space) 2. Research framework Significant related theories about human cognition should first be mentioned. K?vecses (2000: 18) proposed that lay views can influence and determine scientific theories, and vice versa. This assumption can be illustrated and further developed in terms of a