本論文旨在探討現代漢語天氣詞「風」的隱喻、轉喻和明喻之用法。本研究從中文詞彙特性素描系統(Chinese Word Sketch Engine)及線上搜尋引擎(Google)中，各收集了五百一十五筆語料庫語料及一百六十九筆部落格語料作為檢測譬喻用法的語料。
本研究發現在三個階段中:風起、風拂及風逝，風的許多特性都有延伸譬喻用法。在語料中沒有發現單純的隱喻，風的隱喻用法延伸自風的不同特性，因此都以轉喻為基礎，且占超過百分之五十的比例。語料庫中的譬喻用法多偏負面，而部落格中的譬喻用法則較為中立。明喻和隱喻形成方式為:風的特性或結構由來源域投射至不同的目標域，明喻的典型概念為「強度|快速」;隱喻典型概念為「風氣|風格|風潮」。風的轉喻用法多為以部分代全體和以原因代結果兩種，典型用法為「天氣」及「風景」。
本研究發現除了風的特性形成之隱喻是以轉喻為基礎之外，風本身形成之隱喻也與轉喻有融合之現象。隱喻與轉喻融合現象較Goossens (1990)多種，包括轉喻衍生成隱喻、隱喻包含轉喻及轉喻衍生隱喻再衍生成轉喻。本研究收集的語料中，隱喻與轉喻的融合、以轉喻為基礎的隱喻及轉喻的形成都與轉喻相關且出現頻率極高，由此顯示多數譬喻用法延伸自轉喻的基礎概念。此外，明喻和隱喻的不同點在於:明喻傳達的概念較接近風的自然特性，而隱喻傳達的概念則較為抽象，且在部落格語料中發現明喻似乎有引導創新隱喻用法的功能。
本研究也發現在約定俗成用法至新穎用法的連續構面中有不同程度的創新譬喻用法，包括成語譬喻字面意義化、目標域擴大、隱喻蘊涵及鮮少延伸的特性等。慣例性隱喻可由概念譬喻理論解釋其形成過程，而創新譬喻用法則可由空間融合理論清楚地分析，由此顯示此二理論在解釋譬喻用法上可為互補理論。

The thesis aims to investigate how expressions of the weather term, feng, are used figuratively in Mandarin Chinese. Based on data-driven analysis, we attempt to examine the uses of simile, metonymy and metaphor of feng. The data sources include a corpus data from the Chinese Word Sketch and a blog data from Search Engine Google. In total, 515 tokens of figurative uses from the corpus data and 169 instances from the online blogs are found.
In the two data sources, many attributes of feng’s three different phases, including appearing, ongoing and disappearing, are extended to be used figuratively.
In the collected data, we do not find pure metaphors, but metaphors deriving from its attributes, leading to metonymy-based metaphor. These metaphors account for more than a half of occurring frequency, while simile and metonymy do not have absolute ranks in frequency. The value revealed in the corpus data tends to be more negative, while it has a strong tendency toward neutral value in the blog data.
Simile and metaphor are formed by the mapping from features or structures of feng in source domains onto different target domains. The typical concept conveyed by simile is INTENSITY/FASTNESS, while the typical intended meaning conveyed by metaphor is ATMOSPHERE/VOGUE/STYLE. In metonymy, PART-FOR-WHOLE metonymy and CAUSE-FOR-EFFECT metonymy are found. The typical concepts of metonymy are WEATHER and SCENERY.
The boundary between metaphor and metonymy of feng is not clear-cut. Interaction types are more than those proposed by Goossens (1990). Metaphor from Metonymy, Metonymy within Metaphor and Metonymy from Metaphor from Metonymy are identified. These interaction uses, together with metonymy and metaphor are all related to metonymy, which reveals that many concepts may be extended from a more basic level, that is, metonymy. Furthermore, the differences of simile and metaphor include abstractness and the intended meanings stated or not. In the blog data, simile is used as an introductory device to bring in the novel metaphor use.
The innovative figurative uses form a continuum between conventionality and creativity. These uses arise from the idiom-like expression used with literal interpretation, domain-mapping expansion, metaphorical entailments and features that are seldom highlighted. The conventional uses can be clearly explained by Conceptual Metaphor Theory, but the innovative ones are better accounted for by Blending Theory. It implies that the two theories may be complementary to explain both conventional and creative uses. It is hoped that through the observation of the two types of data, we can obtain a deeper understanding of how expressions of the weather term, feng, are used figuratively.

References
Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and Experience: Universal Metaphors of Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric, Book III, 20-27. W. R. Roberts, Translation. Random House: New York.
Aisenman, R. A. 1999. Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol 14.1: 45-51.
Barcelona, Antonio. 2001. On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors: case studies and proposed methodology. In Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 117-146.
Black, M. 1979. More about metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 19-43.
Cameron, Lynne. 2008. Metaphor and talk. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 197-211.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chiappe, Dan L. and John M. Kennedy. 2000. Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.4: 371-398.
Chiappe, Dan L. and John M. Kennedy. 2001. Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol 16(3&4): 249-276.
Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguisitcs 4-4: 335-370.
Dascal, M. 1987. Defending literal meaning. Cognitive Science 11: 259-281.
Deignan, Alice. 1999. Linguistic metaphors and collocation in nonliterary corpus data. Metaphor and Symbol 14.1:19-36.
Deignan, Alice. 2008. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 280-294.
Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K. 1987. Language and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Dirven, René and Ralf Porings (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eberhard, Wolfram. 1986. A Dictionary of Chinese Symbols: hidden symbols in Chinese life and thought. Translated from the German by G. L. Campbell. London: Thames and Hudson.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2003. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Oxford.
Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 183-206.
Glucksberg, S. and B. Keysar. 1993. How metaphors work. In Andrew Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 401-424.
Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions of linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1-3: 323-340.
Grady, Joseph E., Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson. 1997. Blending and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 101-124.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole & Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Sematics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan TH. Gries (eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 123-151.
Hu, Zhuan-Lin. 2004. Metaphor and cognition. Peiking: Peiking University Press.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicogo: University of Chicogo Press.
Indurkjya, B. 1991. Metaphor and Cognition: An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Knowles, Murray, and Rosamund Moon. 2006. Introducing Metaphor. New York: Routledge.
Kövecses, Zoltán, and Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9-1: 37-77.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2003. Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and the body in human feeling. New York: Cambridge University Press
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kreuz, R. J. and R. M. Roberts. 1993. The Empirical Study of Figurative Language. Poetics 22.1-2: 151-169. p154
Lakoff, George. 1987a. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987b. The death of dead metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Acitivity 2: 143-147.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. (new edn. 2003) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicogo: University of Chicogo Press.
Langacher, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequuisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2008. Understanding and classifying two-part allegorical sayings: Metonymy, metaphor, and cultural constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 454-474.
Maasen, Sabine. 2000. Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Miller, G. A. 1979. Images and models, similes and metaphors. In Andrew Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-250.
Nunberg, G., I. Sag and T. Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3: 491-538.
Ogilvie, Astrid E. J. and Gísli Pálsson. 2003. Mood, magic, and metaphor: allusions to weather and climate in the Sagas of Icelanders. In Strauss, Sarah and Ben Orlove (eds.) Weather, Climate, Culture. New York: Oxford.
Ortony, Andrew. 1993. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 342-356.
Radden, Günter. 2003. How metonymic are metaphors? In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93-108.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José. 2003. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 109-132.
Seto, Ken-ichi. 1999. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden (eds.), 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91-120.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17. 1/2: 3-23.
Tendahl, Markus, and Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. 2008. Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823-1864.
Turner, Mark. 1990. Aspects of the Invariance Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1:247-255.
Turner, Mark. 1993 An Image-schematic Constraint on Metaphor. In Richard A. Geiger, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), Conceptualization and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 291-306.
Turner, Mark, and Gilles Fauconnier. 2003. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 133-145.
Ungerer, F., and H. J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Vega-Moreno, Rosa E. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language 21.3: 404-433.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2002. Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249-290. A version of this paper was reprinted in Handbook of Pragmatics, G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.) 2004, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Zheng, Jia-fang. 2005. On the Metaphors of “Climate” in English and Chinese. Journal of Anhui University of Technology (Social Sciences) 22.3: 72-74