The reversal of Figure-Ground organization not only illuminates the reversibility of metonymic mappings but also finds its way to set up a holistic framework to elaborate the cognitive mechanisms in generating and construing metonymy which are two reverse cognitive processes occurring in different time and space, and, therefore, it is inadvisable and misleading to mix up the two processes or only pay attention to either of them in metonymic research.
LU Junyu
. The Reversibility of Figure-Ground Theory and the Cognitive Mechanism of Metonymy[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015
, 15(11)
: 24
-29
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.11.006
Alac, M. & S. Coulson. 2004. The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? [J]. Cognitive Science Online (l2): 21-34.
Barcelona, A. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 207-78.
Boersma, P. 2007. Some listener-oriented accounts of haspiré in French [J]. Lingua 117: 1989-2054.
Baylis, G.C. & J. Driver. 1995. One-sided edge assignment in vision: Figure-ground segmentation and attention to objects[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science (4): 140-46.
Croft, W. 2002[1993]. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 161-205.
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. 275-76.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica (6): 222-54.
Huang Liqiang & H. Pashler. 2009. Reversing the attention effect in figure-ground perception [J]. Psychological Science 20:1199-1201.
Julesz, B. Textons. 1984. The elements of texture perception, and their interactions [J]. Nature 290: 91-97.
Koch, P. 1999. Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 139-68.
Koch, P. 2001. Metonymy: Unity in diversity [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics (2): 201-44.
Koffka, K. 1999[1935]. Principles of Gestalt Psychology [M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kövecses Z. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy [J]. Metaphor and Symbol (2): 75-88.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. Ⅱ. [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions [J].Cognitive Linguistics (4): 1-38.
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/NewYork: Moulton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. 2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 46-71.
Mendoza, R. F. J. & Olga I. Díez Velasco. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 489-532.
Panther, K-U. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In R. F. J. Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 353-86.
Panther, K-U. & L. Thornburg. 2003. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas [A]. In K-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 127-48.
Peirsman, Y. & D. Geeraerts. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (3): 269-316.
Qiu T Fangtu, T. Sugihara & R. von der Heydt. 2007. Figure-Ground mechanisms provide structure for selective attention [J]. Nature Neuroscience (10):1492-99.
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. 17-60.
Rojo, A. M. 2009. A cognitive approach to the translation of metonymy-based humor [J]. Across Languages and Cultures (10): 63-83.
Rubin, E. 1958[1915]. Figure and ground [A]. In D.C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (eds.). Readings in Perception [C]. Princeton: Van Nostrand. 194-203.
Sperb, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Treisman, A. 1986. Features and objects in visual processing [J]. Scientific American 255:114-25.
Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences [A]. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals in Human Language Vol.4 [C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 627-49.
Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
van Valin, R. D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vecera, S. et al. 2004. Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment [J]. Psychological Science (15): 20-26.
Vernon, M. D. 2013. Visual Perception [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
刘国辉.2006.图形-背景空间概念及其在语言中的隐喻性表征[J].外语研究(2):23-29.
卢军羽.2011.隐喻与转喻:争议与原型解释[J].天津外国语大学学报(2):8-15.
张辉、孙明智.2005.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制[J].外语与外语教学(3):1-6.
张克定.2011.英语倒装方位构式的认知语篇研究[J].外语教学与研究(4):529-39.
