一詞多義(polysemy)為單一詞彙形式具有之一組具相關性又具區別性的義項。認知語義學以隱喻、轉喻及意象圖式等認知理據，探究多義詞義項之關聯性，讓一詞多義分析具備認知現實性。不過多義詞義項區別性之判定因缺乏一致理論架構而出現分析者主觀認定的空間。亦因如此，不同研究對於多義動詞「看」可析出不同之7個、9個及17個義項。
本論文以多義感官視覺動詞「看」為例，建立多義詞義項分析之區別性及關聯性理論架構，以Evans (2005)原則性多義理論為主，抽取中央研究院漢語平衡語料庫及政治大學漢語口語語料庫之例句進行分析，確認「看」有七個具區別性之獨立義項及其原型義項；並以轉喻及隱喻映射確認七義項間之關聯性。除以各自義項具有之意象圖式確認七個義項之認知現實性外，並提出義項出現主觀性之理據。本文亦提出「看」組構之語義網絡有別於一般動詞之輻射散開狀，另以義項之行為概述探究義項間之親疏關係，且以之畫出「看」的語義網絡。最後本文從歷時「看」語義演變之情況提出「看」語義網絡延伸實具方向性。
本研究為現代漢語多義詞「看」之多面向認知分析，提出視覺感知過程具有之連綿積累特性，不但反映於多義漢語感官動詞「看」之延伸義項，其轉喻及隱喻映射也出現連綿性現象，「看」義項之句法行為概述更反映連綿性及家族相似性。因此，概念結構確可體現為語義結構，語義結構亦促動句法結構。語言共性非存於語言形式，實存於人類之認知心理。

Polysemy refers to a grouping of related but distinct senses of a single lexical item. Cognitive semantics applies metonymic and metaphorical mappings within the conceptual system to explain the relatedness among senses. However, the synchronic distinction of senses lacks a coherent theoretical framework; consequently, semanticists could only make their own analyses, including speakers’ intuition. This explains the existence of seven, nine or even up to seventeen different senses of the same Chinese perception verb ‘kan’ in previous studies.
The main goal of this dissertation is to explore the various directions in the linguistic categorizations of polysemy via the analysis of the Chinese perception verb ‘kan’, examples of which are drawn from the Academic Sinica Corpus and the National Chengchi University (NCCU) Corpus of Spoken Chinese. Utilizing Principled Polysemy (Evans, 2005) as the proposed framework, seven distinct senses of ‘kan’ have been identified, including one sanctioning sense. In addition, the metonymic and metaphorical mappings within the conceptual system explain the relatedness among the seven senses of ‘kan’. The seven senses have their own unique images as well, and some senses even exhibit subjectivity. This research employs the behavioral profiles of seven senses of ‘kan’ to suggest that its semantic network differs from the radial structure of general polysemy. By analyzing the similarities and relationships among these seven senses, a clear semantic network of ‘kan’ is constructed accordingly. Finally, possible paths of extensions of the senses of ‘kan’ are proposed via the analysis of ‘kan’ from diachronic perspectives.
The results of this study show that continuum does not merely exist in the processes among the seven senses of ‘kan’, but also exist in metonymic and metaphorical mappings among them. Both continuum and family resemblance exist in the behavioral profiles of these seven senses as well. This reveals that human conceptual system can be embodied in semantic structure, and semantic structure can also actuate computational system. Language universal does exist in human cognition hence.

王谷全（2010）。“看”、“Look”的語法化對比研究（未出版之碩士論文）。長沙理工大學，長沙市。
王東梅、劉豐 (2010)。從體驗哲學和概念隱喻看一詞多義。四川教育學院學報。26(9)，97-101頁。
王紅斌（2002）。現代漢語心理動詞的範圍和類別。晉東南師範專科學校學報。4，62-64頁。
王桂花（2008）。漢英視覺動詞對比研究（未出版之碩士論文）。魯東大學，煙台市。
王磊（2006）。英漢視覺動詞語法化的認知研究（未出版之博士論文）。中央民族大學，北京市。
丰競（2003）。現代漢語心理動詞的語義分析。淮北煤炭師範學院學報。1，106-110。
呂叔湘（1942）。中國文法要略。北京：商務印書館。
呂叔湘（1981）。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞(增訂本)。北京：商務印書館。
李英哲、鄭良偉（1990）。實用漢語參考語法。北京：北京語言學院出版社。
李紅儒（2001）。認知意向謂詞與視覺感知謂詞。外語學刊，3，61-65頁。
沈家煊（1994）。R. W. Langacker的“認知語法”。國外語言學，1，12-20頁。
武文杰（2008）。現代漢語視覺行為動詞研究（未出版之博士論文）。山東大學，濟南市。
周有斌、邵敬敏（1993）。漢語心理動詞及其句型。語文研究，3，18-23頁。
周同燕（2005）。現代漢語中看的語法化現象考察。沙洋師範高等專科學校學報，6（6），54-56頁。
屈承熹（1996）。現代漢語中“句子”的定義及其定位。世界漢語教學，4，16-23頁。
屈承熹（2006）。漢語功能篇章語法 - 從認知、功能到篇章結構。臺北市：文鶴出版社。
胡裕樹、范曉（1995）。動詞研究。開封市：河南大學出版社。
侯博（2008）。漢語感官詞的語義語法學研究（未出版之碩士論文）。南京師大碩士論文，南京市。
高琇玟（2007）。台語「講」&「看」的存在關係（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
徐睿、王文斌（2005）。心理動詞也析。寧波大學學報，18(3)， 65-69頁。
袁明軍（2000）。程度副詞和動詞的類。語言學論輯(第3輯)。天津：南開大學出版社。
郭永松（2007）。台灣華語視覺感知動詞的語意辨異與原型效應探析：以語料庫為基礎的分析方法。第八屆漢語詞彙語意學研討會。香港：香港理工大學。
許惠玲、馬詩帆（2007）。從動詞到子句標記：潮州方言和台灣閩南話動詞‘說’和‘看’的虛化過程。中國語文研究，23， 61-72頁。
梅家駒、竺一鳴、高蘊琦、殷鴻翔編（1996）。同義詞詞林。上海：上海辭書出版社。
張云（2009）。視覺動詞“看”、“見”使用情況歷時、共時考察（未出版之碩士論文）。華中師範大學，武漢市。
張京魚（2001）。漢語心理動詞及其句式。唐都學刊，17（1）， 112-115頁。
張佩茹（2004）。英漢視覺動詞的時間結構、語義延伸及語法化（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。
張曉麗（2007）。現代漢語視覺動詞研究述評。語言理論研究，10，18-19頁。
張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁（2000）。漢語動詞詞彙語義分析:表達模式與研究方法。Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing，5(1)，1-18頁。
陳平（1994）。試論漢語中三種句子成份與語義成份的配位原則。中國語文，3，161-168頁。
陳佳（2003）。英漢視覺常規隱喻比較。解放軍外國語學院學報，26（1），20-27頁。
陳俊光（2007）。對比分析與教學應用。臺北市：文鶴出版社。
陳振宇、朴珉秀（2006）。話語標記"你看"、"我看"與現實情態。語言科學，5（2），3-13頁。
陳穎、林靜（2009）。看“看V”。現代語文，6，47-48頁。
陸儉明（1959）。現代漢語中一個新的語助詞「看」。中國語文，10，490-492頁。
陶紅印 (2003)。從語音，語法，話語特徵看“知道”格式在談話中的演化。中國語文，4，291-302頁。
畢永峨 (2007)。遠指詞“那”詞串在台灣口語中的詞彙化語習語化。當代語言學，3（2），128-138頁。
莊舒文（2002）。時相與時態的搭配關係（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。
曾心怡（2003）。當今台灣國語之句法結構（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。
曾立英（2005）。“我看”與“你看”的主觀化。漢語學習，2，15-22頁。
曾泰元（2012）。Linsanity英文字海之一粟？。中國時報，時論廣場A18。
黃居仁、洪嘉馡（2005）感官動詞的近義辨析：詞義與概念的關係。第六屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會論文集，廈門市。
黃郁純（1999）。漢語能願動詞之語義研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。
董秀芳 （2002）。論句法結構的詞彙化。語言研究，3，57-65頁。
董秀芳 （2005）。漢語的詞庫與詞法。北京：北京大學出版社。
楊書平（2007）。從"……看時"到"……一看"。漢語學習，81，56-58頁。
楊華（1994）。試論心理狀態動詞及其賓語的類型。文教資料，33，33-36頁。
趙元任（1994）。中國話的文法。臺北市：學生書局。
趙艷芳（2001）。認知語言學概論。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡原著(1996)。實用現代漢語語法。臺北市：師大書苑。
鄧守信 （1984）。漢語及物性關係的語義研究。臺北市：學生書局。
鄧守信 （2009）。對外漢語教學語法。臺北市：文鶴出版社。
鮑莉（2009）。視覺動詞研究綜述。咸寧學院學報，29（5），72-74頁。
鄭良偉（1997）。台語與台灣華語裡的子句結構標誌「講」與「看」。台語、華語的結構及動向II：台、華語的接觸與同義語的互動，105-132頁。臺北市：遠流出版社。
鄭雷（2006）。看的語法化分析。現代語文（語言研究），9，34-35頁。
鄭縈、魏郁真（2006）。「X +子」詞彙化與語法化過程。興大中文學報，20，163-208頁。
蔣紹愚（2005）。古漢語詞彙綱要。北京：商務印書館。
歐德芬（2011）。漢語感官動詞「看」之教學設計。2011年台灣華語文教學年會暨研討會，pp.633-642，台灣，台南市。
戴浩一（2000）。新世紀台灣語言學研究之展望。漢學研究，18，511-519頁。
戴浩一（2002）。概念結構與非自主性語法：漢語語法概念系統初探。當代語言學，4（1），1-12頁。
戴浩一（2007）。中文構詞與句法的概念結構。華語文教學研究，4（1），1-30頁。
韓玉國（2003）。漢語視覺動詞的語義投射及語法化構擬。外國語言文學，4，10-13頁。
蕭國政 (2007)。現代語言學名著導讀。蕭國政主編。北京：北京大學出版社。
蕭惠帆（2004）。來去之間 – 從語法到教學詞彙來去的趨向和情態（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。
蘇以文（2005）。隱喻與認知 。台北：台大出版中心。
Ahrens, Kathleen, Chang, Li-li, Chen, Ke-jiann & Huang, Chu-Ren (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantation for Chinese nominals, Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3, 45-60
Altenberg, Bengt (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 101-22). Oxford: Clarendon.
Albertazzi, Liliana (2000). Which semantics? In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Atkins, Sue B.T. (1987). Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. Proceedings of the third annual conference of the UW center for the new oxford English dictionary, pp. 17-36.
Barcelona, Antonio (2000). On the plausibility of caliming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner, & L. Gleitman (Ed.), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Sussan, & Finegan, Edward (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, UK: Longman.
Brugman, Claudia & Lakoff, George (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell and M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution, (pp. 477-507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Bybee, Joan (2006). From usage to grammar. Language, 82(4), 529-51.
Chang, Jui-Fen (2001). Grammaticalization processes reflected in Chinese lexemes SHUO and KAN (Master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung City.
Chao, Yuen Ren (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chiu, Tsu-Ling (2009). A frame-based lexical semantic study of Mandarin perception verbs (Master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Hsin Chu City.
Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, Anthony P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Clarendon.
Croft, William (2003). Typology and universals (2nd edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, Alan (2000). Meaning in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, David R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
Evans, Vyvyan (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon, and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33-75.
Evans, Vyvyan & Tyler, Andrea (2004a). Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,16
Evans, Vyvyan & Tyler, Andrea (2004b). Spatial experience, lexical structure and movement: the case of in. In Radden, Gunter & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (Eds.), Language studies in motivation (pp. 157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 370-392). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Sue B. T. (1992). Toward a framed-based lexicon : The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lahrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrast (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fischer, Olga & Rosenbach, Anette (2000). Introduction. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Gass, Susan & Selinker, Larry (2001). Second language acquisition: An introduction course(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Geeraerts, Dirk (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223-272
Givón, Talmy. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, J. (Ed), Iconicity in Syntax (pp.187-219). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological instruction, Vol. II Amsterdam, Holland: J. Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy (1993). English grammar: A function-based instruction. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gries, Stefan T. & Divjak, Dagmar (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57-75). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin’s.
Gruber, Jeffrey (1976). Lexical structure in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hanks, Patrick (1996). Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1):75-98.
Hill, Archibald A. (1957). Introduction to linguistic structures. New York, NY: Burlingame.
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott Elizabeth C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, Ai-Yu (2008). Semantic extensions from perception – cognition - utterance to modality and manipulation verbs in Mandarin: A frame-based account (Master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Hsin Chu City.
Hu, Chia-Yin (2007). Conceptual schema of the cognition domain: A frame-based study of Mandarin cognition verbs (Master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Hsin Chu City.
Huang, Shuanfan (1995). Chinese as a metonymic language. In O. Tzeng & M. Chen (Eds.), In honor of William Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change. (pp. 223-252). Taipei : Pyramid Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990). Semantic structures. Canmbridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, Mark (1987). The body in the mind:The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Joos, Martin (1964). The English verb:Form and meaning. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Kövecses, Zoltan (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltan & Radden, Gunter (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-77.
Kreitzer, Anatol (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 291-325
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). 2nd edition. Canmbridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh, the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (2003). Metaphors we live by, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee, Adrienne C. (2007). “Kan” as a performative verb in Mandarin Chinese: A case of interaction between semantic/pragmatics and syntactic structure. Chung Hsing Journal of Humanities, 38, 433-450.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1987). Meaning and the English verbs. London, England: Longman.
Lehrer, Adrienne & Lehrer, Keith (1995). Field, network and vectors. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honor of Sir John Lyons (pp. 26-47). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, Beth. (1993). English verbs classes and alternations—A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: the University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In M. Papi & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatic Perspective (pp. 61-129). Amsterdam, Holland: Benjamins
Li, Charles N., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Li, Charles. N., & Thompson, Sandra A. (2005). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.(漢語語法，黃宣範譯)
Lien, Chinfa (2005). Verbs of visual perception in Taiwanese Southern Min: A cognitive approach to shift of semantic domains. Language and Linguistics, 6(1), 109-132.
Lin, Chien-Jer & Ahrens, Kathleen (2000). Calculating the number of senses: Implications for Ambiguity advantage effect during lexical access. Seventh International Symposium on Chinese Language and Linguistics Proceedings, 141-156.
Lin, Chien-Jer & Ahrens, Kathleen (2010). Ambuguity advantate revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns, Journal of Psycholinguist, 39(1), 1-19.
Liu, Mei-Chun (2002). Mandarin Verbal Semantics: A Corpus-based Approach. Taipei: Crane publishing Co.
Liu, Mei-Chun & Chiang, Ting-Yi (2008). The construction of Mandarin VerbNet: A frame-based study of statement verbs. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 239-270.
Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics, Vol. II. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John (1981). Language, meaning and context. London, England: Fontana.
MacWhinney, Brian (1989). Competition and lexical categorization. In R. Corrigan, F. Eckman, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Linguistic categorization. New York, NY: Benjamins.
McCaughren, Amanda (2009). Polysemy and homonymy and their importance for the study of word mening. ITB Journal, 18(12), 107-115
Moon, Rosamund (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan & Wasow, Thomas (1994). Idioms. Language, 70, 491-538.
Osgood, Charles E. & Sebeok, Thomas A. (Eds.). (1954). Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problem. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Palmer, Frank R. (1965). The English verb. London, England: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.
Radden, Gunter & Kövecses, Zoltan (1999) .Toward a theory of metonymy. K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-60). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin’s.
Ravin, Yael & Leacock, Claudia (2002). Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford, England: Oxford Linguistics Press.
Renouf, Antoinette & Sinclair, John (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 128-143). London, UK: Longman.
Rosch, Eleanor (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192-233.
Saeed, John. (2003). Semantics, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sandra, Dominiek (1998). What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 361-378.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Stubbs, Michael (2002). Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 215-244.
Sweetser, Eve. (1986). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? Proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 528-538)
Sweetser, Eve. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and culture aspect of semantic structure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tai, James. H.-Y. (1985). Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In L. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.49-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tai, James. H.-Y. (2003). Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 301-314.
Talmy, Leonard (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universl in human language Vol. 4 (pp. 625-649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, Leonard (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredelo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225-320). New York, NY: Plenum.
Teng, Shou-hsin (1973). A semantic study of transitivity relations in Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Teng, Shou-hsin (1974). Verb classification and its pedagogical extensions. JCLTA, 9(2), 84-92.
Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (1991). Introduction. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. I. (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over, Language,77(4), 724-765.
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan (2003). The semantics of English preposition: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge university press.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (1993). A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In R.Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Advance in role and reference grammar. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (2001). An introduction to syntax. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wu, Xiu-Zhi (1993). Psychological predicates in Chinese (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Xing, Janet Z. (2006). Teaching and Learning Chinese as a Foreign Language: A Pedagogical Grammar. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Yang, Su-Fen (2000). On Chinese psych verbs (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Yu, Ning (2002). Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Journal of Pragmatics and Cognition, 10(1/2), 341-367
Yu, Ning (2004). The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 663-686
Zhung, Feng-Ya (2001). A semantic study of Mandarin perception verbs Kan, Ting and Wen (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Zimbardo, Philip G. & Gerrig, Richard J. (1996). Perception. In Daniel J. Levitin (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive psychology：Core reading (pp. 133-188). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zipf, George K. (1949). The human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.