Benczes, Réka
2006Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-noun Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 156–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carmen, Portero-Muñoz
2015 “Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon?” In Conceptual Metonymy, Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, ed. by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona, and Rossella Pannain, 261–286. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Carson, Robyn
1988 “Implicature, explicature and truth- theoretic semantics”. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
2002Thoughts and Utterances: Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dictionary Editing Office of the Institute of Linguistics (eds)
2016Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Modern Chinese Dictionary (seventh edition), Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. C. and Richard, Schmitt
1998 “Rules or association in the acquisition of morphology – the frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax”, Language and Cognitive Processes, 131, 307–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick. C.
2002 “Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Birong
2013 “On metaphorical properties of acceptation of body terms and its projection braking”, Foreign Language Research (6), 39–42.Google Scholar
Jiang, Xiaohong
2011 “Research on cognitive pragmatic mechanism of metonymic word understanding – the integrated analysis model of relevance theory and cognitive”, Linguistics Modern Foreign Languages (1).Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2008 “Much mouth much tongue: Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behavior”, Cognitive Linguistics 19(2), 241–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “The pervasiveness of congruity and metonymy in semantic change”, In Current methods in historical semantics, ed. by Kathryn Allan and Justyna A. Robinson, 259–311. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mounton.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter, Radden
1998 “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”, Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark, Johnson
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1993 “Reference-point constructions”, Cognitive Linguistics 4(1), 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jiapan
2019 “Research on procedure and mechanism of semantic construal for [N+N] morphological words in Contemporary Chinese”, Language Teaching and Research (5), 92–102.Google Scholar
Riemer, Nick
2003 “When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy”. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast ed. by Driven, Rene and Porings, Ralf, 297–403. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shi, Chunhong
2010 “Web Language as a language Variety and a Linguistic Issue”, Applied Linguistics (3), 70–80.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre
1995Relevance Theory: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wang, Ning
1997 “Exegetics and the Structure and Meaning of Chinese Disyllabic Words”, Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (4), 11–22.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn, Carson
2006 “Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue”, Mind & Language (21), 404–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan, Sperber
2002Relevance Theory, In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by L. Horn and G. Ward. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J. and Bradley C. Love
1998 “Relations versus properties in conceptual combination”, Journal of Memory and Language 38(2), 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Hui. and Hui, Cai
2005 “On the Complementarities of Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory”, Journals of Foreign Languages (3), 14–21.Google Scholar
Zhao, Qian
2007Research on Rules of Lexical Semantic Change and Cognitive Motivation of Chinese Body Nouns. PhD dissertation, Beijing Language and Culture University.
2020 “The semantic structure and motivation of word formation of ‘V+N’ of Chinese modifying compound words, Chinese Teaching in the World 2020(2), 201–214.Google Scholar
Zhou, Jian
2009New Chinese Words 2008, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2010New Chinese Words 2009, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2013New Chinese Words 2012, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2015New Chinese Words 2014, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2016New Chinese Words 2015, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2017New Chinese Words 2016, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
2018New Chinese Words 2017, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar