自我协商、基于问题的二语学得:二语认知与建构的途径
开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇自我协商、基于问题的二语学得:二语认知与建构的途径范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！
[摘 要] 基于问题的二语学得（Problem-based L2 Learning，PBLL）以发展二语认知和建构为主要目的之一，以目的语表述、结构不良的真实问题为二语学得起点，以自我协商原则引导和制约的群体合作和个体探究为二语认知途径。PBLL自我协商过程的连接、冲洗和合流的认知机制不仅实现了定义问题、提议初步方案、自主探究证据、小组确定最终方案和小组汇报与反思诸个环节，而且贯穿整个PBLL，构成一个螺旋上升、动态生成的二语认知和建构过程。PBLL学习者的认知发展以自我一致、自我协调、自我核定、自我认同、自我满足和自我允准为目的、手段和结果，从而使PBLL成为基于问题、自我协商的二语认知与建构的途径。
[关键词] 自我协商；基于问题；二语学得；认知机制
[中图分类号] G642.4 [文献标志码] A [文章编号] 1005-4634（2014）04-0016-07
0 引言
基于问题的学习（Problem-based Learning，PBL）于诞生之初是一种课程模式，具有四大课程目标[1]：发展医学院学生的临床诊断能力、在不同情境中建构学科知识的能力、自主学习技能以及激发其学习兴趣。后来，PBL从一门独立课程发展成为教学策略[2]，甚至成为教育的“完全途径（Total Approach）”[3]。由于PBL具备建构主义、情境式、合作学习、自我监管以及学生主体等鲜明特性[4，5]，很快就被不同学科所借鉴和应用，星火燎原般地从医学扩展到科学、数学、工程技术[6]、心理学[7]、经济与商学[8]及其它社会科学[9，10]，以及语言教学[11]，特别是外语教学[12]和二语习得领域。
因此，PBL的教育目标也得到补充和完善，包括激发学习者兴趣与动机[13，14]，帮助学习者建构和应用学科知识[15]，促进主动参与和积极态度、培养自主学习者和终身学习者[14，16]，发展解决问题的技能、社会交际与合作能力[16]，增强其自尊和自我效能感[17]，培养批判性思维[18，19]、认知和元认知能力[9，20]。
将PBL应用于二语习得（Second Language Acquisition，SLA）领域的“基于问题的二语学得（Problem-based L2 Learning，PBLL）”自然也不例外，其主要目标即帮助学习者建构丰富的二语“认知模式（Cognitive Models）”[21]。PBLL倡导二语学习者在解决问题的过程中进行情境式、建构式语言认知，以目的语表述、结构不良的真实问题作为二语学得的起点，以循环交替的导师辅导小组合作协商与个体自主探究为核心实施方法，通过理论建构[22]发展认知能力、生成学习者目的语知识。
然而，虽然西方学者已经判定PBL（因而包括PBLL）属于信息加工或建构主义教育方法[9，23-26]，实证研究表明了学习者的认知和元认知能力得到提高[9，20]，而且国内学者也从思辨的角度论述了PBL在外语教学中的应用[12，27，28]及其实施困境[12]，但现有文献多从教育者视角进行剖析，却忽略了从二语习得者视角的追问，更鲜有学者关注其二语建构的认知机制（Cognitive Mechanism）：学习者进行社会协商和互动、认知和建构二语知识体系时的依据是什么？要回答这一问题，有必要从自我协商原则的视角审视PBLL过程。
1 自我协商原则
自我协商原则（Self-negotiation Principle）以哲学术语“主体自洽（Self-consistency）”为基础，但后者强调意识平衡的结果，前者则突出认知平衡的过程。在PBLL视域中，自我协商原则指二语学习者尝试理解和定义以目的语表述的真实情境中的问题、判断和反思其解决方案时，达到“自我一致、自我协调、自我核定、自我认同、自我满足和自我允准”[29]的程度。
由于PBLL采用了PBL的实施程序[25]，即定义问题、提议初步方案、自主探究证据、小组确定最终方案和小组汇报与反思（包括“行动中反思（Reflection-in-action）”和“对于行动的反思（Reflection-on-action）”[30]），这意味着循环交替的个体自主探究和小组群体合作是PBLL的核心实施方法。因此，自我协商原则也相应细分为个体性和群体性自我协商原则。下文以一次案例研究所获的质性数据为补充信息，阐释和说明了PBLL自我协商过程：自我协商原则引导和制约了学习者“连接”、“冲洗”和“合流”的认知机制[29]，不仅实现了PBLL各个环节，而且贯穿整个PBLL，构成一个螺旋上升、动态生成的二语认知和建构过程。
2 PBLL语言认知的自我协商过程
笔者在二年级非英语专业大学英语综合课程中增加了PBLL环节，每个问题研究历时2～4周。作为导师，还在任教班级中随机选择了一个PBLL小组（4男2女）进行辅导、观察和记录，并要求每个学生提交周记（做了什么、如何做、为何这么做）和总结。这些一手资料补充描述和解释了PBLL语言认知的自我协商过程。
传统的SLA教学往往是把二语体系的整体分解成子系统和分项，以语言形式或功能为语言学习的起点。但PBLL是以问题为起点的，因此具有鲜明的特点：（1）问题触发二语学习，二语学习始终围绕问题展开；（2）导师辅导小组合作为学习者提供中介（Mediation）平台，辅助其社会建构和互动活动，因为语言是在社会互动中学得的；（3）充分的自主探究促进了学习者自主和赋权（Autonomy and Empowerment）[1，22，25，26，31]。
PBLL问题是用目的语表述的、在真实世界中观察到的现象或事件，其中蕴含的目的语语言或文化知识可以用某种理论、原则或机制进行阐释[32]，从而激发和整合情境化的二语学习[33]。本次案例研究选取的问题是《Mr.Gibson's complaints》。
Mr. Gibson， our new foreign teacher， complains about the English translation of some signs on our campus.He has mentioned the sign "The grass is so fair.It needs your care" on the central lawn，which he finds "confusing"."That's the gardener's job"，he said to our dean the other day，"A sign saying 'Please keep off the grass' works better".Other signs he complains about include "Water conservation is everyone's responsibility" above water taps，"Let's work together to reduce white pollution" on trash cans，and "It is everyone's responsibility to protect fire equipment" on fire hydrant boxes，which he feels "too long， wired，and empty".Please explain why Mr. Gibson feels like this，and what we should do.
2.1 定义问题的自我协商过程
PBLL的定义问题过程包括两类自我协商：判断个体问题时的个体性自我协商，以及定义小组问题时的群体性自我协商。
学生首次阅读问题描述时，首先要尝试内省地理解问题语境、判断问题所在。有一名学生在周记中做了生动的叙述：
Mr. Gibson is "new" here. Maybe he is suffering from depression because he is all alone here and away from his family and friends back home.That's why he complains a lot.Maybe we should involve him more in our activities of English POP club to release his depression.But this seems more like a "problem" for learning in a social science class or psychology class.I then read the problem description again，and I noticed there must be something wrong with the English translation of those signs because they seem confusing and wired to native speakers like Mr. Gibson.This is the real point.But I don't see any grammatical mistakes in the translations.So it might be a problem of improper choice of wording， or maybe the expression is not "authentic" enough.
可见，问题引起了学生的好奇心。学生首先将问题情境中的新信息与个体的以往经验和已有二语知识进行对比和联系（连接），然后通过自我协调和自我核定，初步确定这二者之间的差距（Gap），这一过程可能包括一次或多次冲洗：如果个体认定某个新信息有意义，但无法同化到自己已有的二语知识体系中，就将其冲洗出来（正如从河滩的沙砾中淘出金子），构成差距或其中一部分。这种对差距的注意是一种认知资源[34]，学习者借此集中脑力对问题进行判断、核定和认可，直至实现自我满足，从而使差距合流成自我允准的个体问题（参见图1）。简言之，PBLL学习者依据个体性自我协商原则诠释和定义个体问题，从而完成认知过程的核心活动――内省的意义建构[35]。
判定各自的个体问题之后，PBLL学习者进行第一次导师辅导小组讨论，进一步交流对问题的解释、补充和求证。这本质上就是群体性意义协商的过程，因为在对问题情境中的关键信息达成共识之前先对个体问题进行集体讨论有助于对关键信息的理解[20][23]，促使小组特别注意选择相关信息，筛除无关信息。个体问题是诸多备选项，供小组讨论和选择，最终确定一个小组问题。具体而言，PBLL小组首先连接个体问题与学习目标。如果这个群体性学习主体认定第一个问题问题与学习目标不符，或者远远超出小组当前的二语能力，或者当场由已掌握适当二语知识的组员阐释解答，则对第一个问题问题的冲洗宣告失败。小组继而连接、冲洗其它个体问题，直到这一群体性学习主体满意于讨论结果，一致赞成、核准其小组问题，一致认定该问题符合学习目标，处于集体的“最近发展区（全称为Zone of Proximal Development，缩写为ZPD）”，从而激发了小组深入探究的欲望。这一群体性自我协商的过程正如导师的观察记录所描述：
They all agree that there must be a problem in the sign translation，which is "not authentic"，or "not in the way English-speakers put it".But none of them see what is wrong with the translation，because after discussion，they find neither spelling mistakes nor grammar errors.To most of them，the English expression on the first sign is even more beautiful，poetic， and convincing than the one offered by Mr. Gibson.Then，they decide to compare the two versions， and one of them points out that our version is a "literal English translation from Chinese" rather than a "standard version".Some of them suggest that the "standard or native expression" of these signs should be collected and compared with our version，which will reveal what is wrong with the expression of our translation.The group prove this proposal.However， most of them are also interested in "why it is not proper"，so they decide to include both "what" and "why" in their GP.
可见，达到自我满足程度的群体性冲洗使合流成为可能，最终明晰、认可和定义了小组问题（参见图2）。
2.2 提议初步解决方案的自我协商过程
小组问题的确定，随即触发了进一步的认知活动：尝试性建模[22]，即提议初步解决方案。
首先，PBLL学习者通过主体间协商（Inter-subjective Negotiation）交流和补充各自的已有二语知识，激发新的同化和顺应，从而建构与小组问题相关的群体性二语知识。然后，PBLL小组连接小组问题和群体二语知识，从词汇、句法、语用或文化等角度进行冲洗，从而判断和核准后者对前者的有效性。两者之间的空白就是解决小组问题所需但当前群体二语知识中欠缺的信息，这正是促生PBLL学习者新的语言认知的强劲动力。最后，所需信息合流成为初步解决方案，即当前PBLL的学习内容（参见图3）。小组的群体性自我协商是通过组内协调、一致认同、集体核准，最终达到群体性主体自我满足和允准的过程，如学生报告所述：
Three students mention possible cultural influence on the English translation of signs which are read by not only English-speakers，but also readers who understand English but not Chinese.Another student compares the 4 signs criticized by Mr. Gibson and assumes that there are different functions of signs：some inform people，some alert people，some just make an appeal，and so on.Two other students further assume that different functions of signs might also influence the way they are translated into English.Their hypotheses win applauses from the rest of us.At last， we decide to search for further information we need to answer the following sub-problems：
Sub-problem 1：What is the standard version of the last three signs that Mr. Gibson mentioned in English-speaking countries？
Sub-problem 2：Does the function of a certain sign influence the wording of its translation？
Sub-problem 3：Does the personal preference of translator influence sign translation？
Sub-problem 4：Does the cultural background of target readers influence the translation？
Sub-problem 5：Does it make sense that the so-called "standard" version is the optimal one？
Sub-problem 6：Is the so-called "standard" version culturally proper in local culture？
2.3 自主探究证据的自我协商过程
激活和建构群体二语知识有助于下一步的目的语自主认知。借助这一支架（Scaffold），PBLL学习者可以更清楚地注意到原本想当然但不准确甚或错误的个体二语知识，从而在自主探究证据环节中进行更有效的学习[32]。
这是学生第二次体验个体性自我协商：每个组员负责解答一个子问题，并提供支持性证据（新信息）。下文所示的学生周记描述了这一环节的典型过程：
The sub-problem assigned to me is "Does the function of a certain sign influence the wording of its translation？" I searched in the library for 2 hours but was still quite at a loss.Then I figured out that it might be more efficient and fruitful to search in digital databases of the library.First I typed in "function of sign" as key words，but popped-out searching result list was way too long.I had to research in the result by adding one more key word "translation" to produce a shorter list.I also noticed that the articles with higher correlation with the key words were ranked in the first couple of webpages.I briefly read through their abstracts before I selected and downloaded some review articles about Text Typology theory that seem most useful to me.From these articles，I learned that a German scholar named Reiss categorized texts into informative， expressive and operative ones with their respective function of delivering information， arousing certain emotion，and persuading readers into taking specific actions.I suddenly understood why Mr. Gibson felt wired when seeing our sign on the lawn. That sign should serve a function of persuading readers into protect the grass by "keeping off the grass"， rather than an expressive translation that only gets readers emotionally attached.The rest sign translations Mr. Gibson complained about are also expressive only，without any operative function. In order to justify my solution，I went ahead to read more articles authored by Chinese scholars on regarding to sign translation，as well as some empirical research reports with convincing data.Now I believe I'm well prepared for the next tutorial group meeting.
可见，学生个体首先要自主选择和判断收集新信息的渠道、方式和资源，然后连接证据和子问题。如果该学生依据自己的已有二语知识对二者进行冲洗并自我判定前者不足以解释后者时，就要进行新一轮自主探究、收集新证据、再次连接和冲洗，直至学生个体认定核实证据有效性，且自我满足地允准合流成子问题的解决方案（新的个体二语知识）。换言之，PBLL赋权学生决定自主学习内容，个体性自我协商原则引导学生进行自主探究和内化，培养了有内部学习动机的自主学习者[13，14]。这一建构个人构念[36]的过程如图4所示。
2.4 确定最终方案的自我协商过程
完成自主探究后，PBLL小组再次集中讨论，检验是否深入理解了小组问题[32]。学生汇报所学内容，补充、分析所获证据，把有效的子问题解决方案整合成小组问题的最终方案。前者就像拼图小片，后者是最终所拼图案。在这拼图游戏过程中，群体性学习主体把小组问题与每个子问题方案逐一进行连接，以便冲洗出恰当的拼图小片及其在整个图案中的位置。如果小组一致认定和核准某些子问题解决方案足以证实或支持最初提议的方案，则可作为充分有效证据合流到最终方案（二语新知识）中，用以清楚阐释或充分解决小组问题（参见图5）。
可见，新证据用以检验最初方案，但另一方面，最初方案也经常因新证据而得到丰富和修正。如果小组辩论后一致判定新证据不足以证实某个子问题解决方案，就需要进行新一轮自主探究，收集更多新信息；或者新证据为小组提供了新的解决思路，则必须调整最初方案，以便顺应新的方案。这种螺旋上升的认知过程往往启迪学习者超越原本学习目标甚或课程大纲，培养了其批判性思维和创造性。以下观察记录可以佐证。
The student responsible for sub-problem 1 reports to the group the "standard translation" of the last 3 signs："Make the Most of Every Drop"，"Recycle，reuse；every little bit helps" and "Fire Hydrant Keep Clear".However，4 of the students question the "authority" of "Standard English"，because English has become a Lingo Franca as a universal working tool，not an exclusive criterion anymore.They argue that different variations of English around the world are appreciated and accepted nowadays.Similarly， the 2 students in charge of culture-related sub-problems report to the group that the target language culture should not be superior to the local one，either， and the latter should also be taken into consideration by translators.Therefore，they put forward a further question："Isn't it one of the purposes for foreign visitors to experience the local culture？"The group finds it reasonable that the literal translation of signs from Chinese into English is an authentic material for foreig ners to understand the collective culture of China， one of whose features is to call for all members of community to take responsibility and work together for a common goal.They also suggest that it is "culturally necessary" for foreigners to appreciate the Chinese way of using metaphors.For example，the word "care" metaphorizes the lawn into something beautiful but fragile like a newborn baby，therefore arouses stronger affection of readers，and provides them with a rationale of protecting it by "keeping off the grass" or "no littering"，etc.One of the students even brings forward a suggestion to foreign visitors："If they would like a fruitful stay in China and successful communication with Chinese people，they should develop their cross-cultural '3rd space' by integrating their personal knowledge of native culture and the local one！" The "burst" of creative ideas based on available evidence seems to be the part they enjoy a lot.
2.5 汇报与反思的自我协商过程
PBLL小组用目的语向全班报告小组结论（即所学得的新二语知识），并进行充分的评价和反思。他们把PBLL过程中的认知体验与小组结论连接起来，通过群体性判断和核准进行冲洗，即总结收获和感悟，反省教训和弯路。当小组取得共识，达到群体性自我认同和满足时，就实现了合流，生成有效学习策略、解决问题策略、监控自己语言认知的元认知策略，以便促进和指导未来遇到的相似情境的PBLL学习（参见图6）。
参与案例研究的学生在总结中提到，“理论建构”过程（特别是定义问题、自主探究和小组协商最终方案时）促生了更多的认知策略。学生还肯定了PBLL的认知性活动（如意义协商、概念化、合作、整合与关联等）发展了其概念理解能力和认知策略，使他们“理解得更透、知识面更广、洞察得更深”。学生还在总结中报告了多种元认知策略，如根据PBLL安排、可支配时间和小组目标设定学习内容，提前制定计划，自我约束、自我监控和适时调整小组合作与自主探究。学生把这些策略看作促进自信和自我效能感的关键因素，因为他们“学会了如何学习”。这些发现印证了PBL培养学习者认知与元认知能力的实证研究结论[9，20]。
3 结束语
如前所述，PBLL的核心特征就是自我协商：学习者不断内省地与个体自己协商，不断与其他组员相互协商，以自我一致、自我协调、自我核定、自我认同、自我满足和自我允准为目的、手段和结果。导师辅导小组作为一个群体性学习主体，以群体性自我协商的形式支持和促进了学习者认知和元认知的发展[33]；在自主探究和个体意义建构中，PBLL个体学习者重新塑造、调整和顺应个体已有二语知识体系，本质上是个体性自我协商的过程。
自我协商的PBLL是动态发展、互动生成的，因为在每个环节中，学习者都要经历一次或多次连接和冲洗，直到合流成功，并进一步触发随后环节的语言认知。这样，PBLL每个环节中认知机制的小循环最终构成了整个PBLL认知机制的大循环。如图7[37]所示，个体性与群体性自我协商交替循环，使得问题动态发展，个体学习者、其他组员与目的语表述的情境化问题之间发生持续互动，生成了新的二语知识、认知策略以及其他应用能力。
概言之，PBLL促使二语学习者进行自我协商的二语建构，“充分施展才能，全神贯注于问题，因而发现了充分有效学习的乐趣”[38]。自我协商原则引导和制约着连接、冲洗和合流，即PBLL学习者的认知机制，在整个PBLL认知过程中起着不可或缺的作用。贯穿PBLL全部过程的“问题”和学习者的自我协商活动，使PBLL成为基于问题、自我协商的二语认知与建构的途径。
参考文献
[1]BARROWS H S.How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years[M].New York：Springer，1985.
[2]WOODS D.Problem-Based Learning：How to Gain the Most from PBL[M].Waterdown，Canada：Woods，1994.
[3]BARROWS H S，TAMBLYN R M.Problem-based learning[M]. New York：Springer，1980.
[4] BROWN J S，COLLINS A，DUGUID P.Situated cognition and the culture of learning[J].Educational Researcher，1989，18（1）： 32-42.
[5]SCARDAMALIA M，BEREITER C.Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building：A challenge for the design of new knowledge media[J].Journal of the Learning Sciences，1991，（1）：37-68.
[6]SPRINGER L，STANNE M E，DONOVAN S S.Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science，mathematics，engineering， and technology： Ameta-analysis [J]. Review of Educational Research，1999，69（1）：21-51.
[7]REYNOLDS F.Studying psychology at degree level：Would problem-based learning enhance students' experiences[J].Studies in Higher Education，1997，（22）：263-275.
[8]GIJSELAERS W H，TEMPELAAR D T，KEIZER P K，et al. Educational innovation in economics and business education：The case of problem-based learning[M].Dordrecht，Netherlands： Kluwer Academic，1995.
[9]SAVERY J R，DUFFY T M.Problem-based Learning：An instructional model and its constructivist framework [J]. Educational Technology，1995，（35）：31-38.
[10]BRIDGES E M，HALLINGER P.Problem-based learning in leadership education [M]// WILKERDON L，Gijseiaers W H. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education：Theory and practice.San Francisco：Jossey-Bass，1996：53-61.
[11]ERIC Development Team.Problem-Based Learning in language instruction：A constructivist model，ED423550[R].Eric Digest， 1998.
[12]支永碧.PBL在中国外语教育中的应用――意义、困境与出路[J].外语与外语教学，2009（7）：33-37.
[13]BARROWS H S.Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond： A brief overview[M]// WILKERSON L，GIJSELAERS W H. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education： Theory and practice.San Francisco：Jossey-Bass，1996：3-12.
[14]STOKES S，MACKINNON M，WHITEHILL T.Students' Experiences of PBL： Journal and Questionnaire Analysis [J]. Journal of University Didactics，1997，21（1）：161-179.
[15]VERNON D T A，BLAKE R L.Does problem-based learning work-A meta-analysis of evaluative research [J]. Academic Medicine，1993，（68）：550-563.
[16]MICHAELSEN LK，BLACK RH.Building learning teams：The key to harnessing the power of small groups in higher education [M]// KADEL S，KEEHNER J.Collaborative learning：A sourcebook for higher education（Vol.2）. State College，PA：National Center for Teaching，Learning，and Assessment，1994：65-81.
[17]AMES C.Classrooms： Goals， Structures， and Student Motivation [J].Journal of Educational Psychology，1992，84（3）：261-271.
[18]BOUD D，FELETTI G I.Changing problem-based learning.Introduction to the second edition [M]// BOUD D， FELETTI G I. The challenge of problem-based learning（2nd ed.）.London： Kogan Page，1997：1-14.
[19]TIWARI A，LAI P，SO M，et al.A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students' critical thinking[J]. Medical Education， 2006， （40）： 547-554.
[20]DE GRAVE W S， SCHMIDT H G， BOSHUIZEN H P A.Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text：A randomized trial among first year medical students [J].Instructional Science，2001，（29）：33-44.
[21]DOLMANS D，SCHMIDT H G.What directs self-directed learning in a problem based curriculum[M]// EVENSEN D， HMELO C.Problem Based Learning：A research perspective on learning interactions.Mahwah，NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum，2000： 251-262.
[22]SCHMIDT H G.Problem-based learning：Rationale and description [J].Medical Education，1983，17（1）：11-16.
[23]SCHMIDT H G，DE GRAVE W S，DE VOLDER M L，et al. Explanatory models in the processing of science text：The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology，1989，（81）：610-619.
[24]NORMAN G R，SCHMIDT H G.The psychological basis of problem-based learning：A review of the evidence [J].Academic Medicine，1992，（67）：557-565.
[25]SCHMIDT H G.Foundations of problem-based learning-Some explanatory notes [J]. Medical Education，1993，（27）：422-432.
[26]HMELO-SILVER C E.Problem-based learning：What and how do students learn[J].Educational Psychology Review， 2004，（16）：235-266.
[27]孙志农，仇旭.论问题式学习在外语教学中的应用[J].安徽农业大学学报，2009（6）：115-118.
[28]乔玉玲，郭丽萍.PBL教学法在大学英语阅读教学中的应用[J]. 教育理论与实践，2011（10）：58-60.
[29]王文斌.隐喻的认知构建与解读[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2007.
[30]SCHON D A.The reflective practitioner：How professionals think in action[M].New York：Basic Books，1983.
[31]EVENSEN D H，HMELO C E.Problem-based learning：A research perspective on learning interactions[M].Mahwah，NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum，2000.
[32]SCHMIDT H G.Assumptions underlying self-directed learning may be false [J].Medical Education，2009，（34）：243-245.
[33]NEWMAN M.Problem Based Learning：An introduction and overview of the key features of the approach[J].Journal of Veterinary，2005，32（1）：12-20.
[34]BEST J B.Cognitive psychology[M].St.Paul， MN：West，1986.
[35]AUSUBEL D.Educational psychology：A cognitive view[M]. New York：Holt，Rinehart and Winston，1968.
[36]KELLY G.The psychology of personal constructs[M].New York：Norton，1955.
[37]王文斌.隐喻的认知建构与解读[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2007 ：116.
[38]WILLIAMS M，BURDEN R L.Psychology for Language Teachers[M].Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2000：25.