進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-2508201920123100
論文名稱(中文) 陰性書寫與摹擬敘事的反邏輯中心關係:銜接與身體隱喻及轉喻
論文名稱(英文) Antilogocentrism of Écriture Féminine and Mimetic Narration: Cohesion and Corporeal Metaphor/Metonymy
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 外國語文學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Foreign Languages & Literature
學年度 107
學期 2
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 李寬
研究生(英文) Kuan Li
學號 K26054042
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 120頁
口試委員 指導教授-謝菁玉
口試委員-張淑麗
口試委員-許綬南
口試委員-高實玫
中文關鍵字 陰性書寫  陽具邏各斯中心  反邏輯中心  陰性空間  陳述與摹擬敘事距離  銜接  概念隱喻與轉喻  閱讀模式  情動  語意未盡 
英文關鍵字 écriture féminine  phallogocentrism  antilogocentrism  chora  diegetic and mimetic narrative distance  cohesion  conceptual metaphor and metonymy  reading model  affect  semantic non-closure 
學科別分類
中文摘要   法國女性主義思想家Cixous(1976)提出陰性書寫的概念,認為由父權論述收編的人類語言不啻為對女性的身體、個人與社會身分的扭曲。女性為重申自身形象,應持續創造出超越二元對立、動搖理性與邏輯、得以將語言連結至自身身體及慾望、並具有語言結構浮動性及語意無止盡性的個人書寫,以避免落入陽具邏各斯中心表徵主義的窠臼。然而有鑒於其不可定義性,歷年來較少有研究從結構主義的角度探討陰性書寫的語言殊性。本論文以Spivak(2006)提出的策略性本質論為立場,結合陰性書寫與Genette(1980)提出的摹擬敘事,並以兩者共有的銜接、身體隱喻與轉喻現象為證,主張陰性書寫的語意追尋過程呼應篇章在敘事距離光譜中摹擬化的過程。
  筆者援引Halliday & Hasan(1976)與Martin(1992)發展的英語語篇銜接理論以檢視陰性書寫的反邏輯,並採用Lakoff & Johnson(2003)提出的概念隱喻映射理論與Peirsman & Geeraerts(2006)提出原型範疇下的轉喻理論來探究陰性書寫對自我/她者二元思維的挑戰及對個人身體的重新詮釋。語料層面,研究一收集截取自10本1980年後出版且隱匿敘事者類型的英語長篇小說開頭,並各自與其大綱所形成共10組的摹擬敘事-陳述語篇配對,目的為撇除陰性書寫的先決條件,對比各組內銜接類別與身體隱喻及轉喻的現象。研究二從銜接、身體結構隱喻與身體轉喻角度反觀具有陰性書寫特質的英語小說—維吉尼亞‧吳爾芙(Virginia Woolf)的《海浪》(The Waves,1931/2010),目的為探究陰性書寫是否具有研究一從摹擬敘事中觀察到的語言殊性。
  研究一結果顯示,在銜接相同指涉的兩種語意成份時,摹擬敘事比其陳述配對依賴(1)較少轉折及因果類的連接關係、(2)較多人稱代名後照應關係於起始段落、與(3)較多的語構反覆關係。從語篇銜接後設功能的角度,摹擬敘事邏輯功能發揮較薄弱、概念功能較顯著。隱喻與轉喻方面,摹擬敘事中的隱喻及轉喻現象比其陳述配對較為頻繁多樣。研究二中,《海浪》的銜接表現則較符合研究一對摹擬敘事的觀察,身體隱喻及轉喻方面則能推衍出[人是大自然]的概念隱喻與[群體代表個人]的概念轉喻。藉由銜接分析的結果,筆者主張摹擬敘事距離與陰性書寫皆較優先勾勒角色與事物的細節,角色及情境之中的邏輯關係傾向以Grabe & Stoller(2002)所提出自下而上的閱讀模式建立。藉由隱喻及轉喻的研究,筆者則主張摹擬敘事與陰性書寫皆創造出能延伸固有認知的隱喻與轉喻在文學作品上展演,如《海浪》中由[大自然]及[群體]映射到的[個人]已消弭自我/她者的二元對立,並返回陰性空間母兒主體的無差別,使經範疇化而獨立的語意概念能彼此交觸,正如同摹擬敘事返回未經敘述者過度詮釋、事件的原有面貌。
  本研究中,陰性書寫與摹擬敘事共有的語言殊性除了作為兩者之間反邏輯關係的佐證,更成為湧出陽具邏各斯中心思想體系之外的情動力,使個人得以持續以其他不同的反邏輯語言另類形式書寫出自身身體及性別身分。
英文摘要   Écriture féminine (feminine writing) proposed by Cixous (1976) conceives of human language under patriarchal discourse as distortion of women’s body, individual and social identity. To reclaim their image, women ought to continually invent individual writings that can transgress binarism, shake rationality and logics, associate language with their body and libidinal desire, and is characteristic of its malleable linguistic structure and semantic non-closure so as to liberate itself from phallogocentric representationalism. However, less research has been dedicated to écriture féminine’s linguistic peculiarity from a structuralist angle because of its undefinability. From the stance of Spivak’s (2006) strategic essentialism, this thesis combines écriture féminine and Genette’s (1980) mimesis based on their cohesive, and corporeal metaphorical/metonymic commonness, and proposes that the semantic ongoingness of écriture féminine parallels mimetization amidst narrative distance spectrum.
  I adopt English cohesion theory developed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) and Martin (1992) to examine the antilogocentrism of écriture féminine, and employ Lakoff & Johnson’s (2003) conceptual metaphor mapping theory and Peirsman & Geeraerts’ (2006) prototypical configuration of metonymy to explore écriture féminine’s challenge against self/other binarism and its reinterpretation of individual body. Apropos of materials, Study I extracts incipient texts from 10 post-1980 English covert novels, which are paired with their respective summaries, forming 10 mimesis-diegesis pairs. Without premise on écriture féminine, Study I contrasts within-pair cohesive and corporeal metaphorical/metonymic phenomena. Study II analyzes these phenomena in Virginia Woolf’s The Waves (1931/2010), an English novel with characteristics of écriture féminine, to investigate if écriture féminine shares the linguistic features of mimetic narrations observed in Study I.
  Result of Study I reveals that when uniting the same two semantic entities, mimetic texts rely on (1) less adversative and causal conjunctions, (2) more personal pronominal cataphoric reference in incipient paragraphs, and (3) more syntactic construction reiteration than their diegetic counterparts. In terms of cohesive metafunction, mimesis expresses lower logical meaning, while is ideationally more salient. Concerning metaphor and metonymy, more corporeal metaphors and metonymies are discovered in mimetic narratives than their diegetic counterparts. In Study II, cohesive performance in The Waves corresponds more to the observations of mimetic narrations in Study I. Conceptual metaphor HUMAN IS NATURE and conceptual metonymy GROUP FOR INDIVIDUAL can be extrapolated. Via the cohesive analysis, I argue that both mimetic distance and écriture féminine prioritize detailed portrayal of characters and subject matters more. The logical connection among characters and plots tend to be constructed in bottom-up reading model proposed by Grabe & Stoller (2002). Through the study of metaphor and metonymy, I propose that both écriture féminine and mimetic narrations create corporeal metaphors/metonymies able to extend the entrenched cognition and to perform in literary works. In The Waves, the concept [INDIVIDUAL] mapped by [NATURE] and [GROUP] attenuates self/other dichotomy, returns to a choraic indifferentiation of mother and fetus’ subjectivity, and associates semantic concepts separated by categorization. This parallels mimetic narrations where the original panorama of events is restored without narrators’ overt interpretation.
  In this research, the linguistic peculiarities between écriture féminine and mimetic narrations not only manifest their antilogocentric relation, but exhibit an affective force that overflows phallogocentrism and enables individuals to continually write their own bodies and gender identities via other different linguistic alternatives.
論文目次 Table of Contents
Abstract I
中文摘要 III
Acknowledgements V
Table of Contents VIII
List of Abbreviations XI
Conventions XII
List of Tables XIII
List of Figures XIV
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motivation and Rationale 1
1.2 Research Questions and Thesis Statement 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Social-Historical Background of Modern Feminism 8
2.2 Écriture Féminine and French Feminism 11
2.2.1 Antilogocentrism: Against Representationalism, Logics, and Binarism 14
2.2.2 Linking Body with Text: Coexistence of Metaphor and Metonymy 20
2.2.3 Semantic Ongoingness 22
2.2.4 Literary Practices of Écriture Féminine 22
2.2.5 Écriture Féminine and Structuralism 24
2.3 Narratology and Mimetic Narrative Distance 26
2.3.1 Narrative Distance 28
2.3.2 Criteria of Distinguishing Diegesis and Mimesis in Non-Speech Narration 32
2.3.3 Interim Summary: Mimesis and Écriture Féminine 35
Chapter 3 Linguistic Methodology 38
3.1 Linguistic Theoretical Framework: Cohesion 38
3.1.1 Discourse Analysis 38
3.1.2 Cohesion 40
3.2 Linguistic Theoretical Framework: Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy 46
3.2.1 Conceptual Metaphor 47
3.2.2 Conceptual Metonymy 49
3.3 Methodology of Study I 53
3.3.1 Rationale 53
3.3.2 Materials and Variable Control 54
3.3.3 Linguistic Operation 57
3.4 Methodology of Study II 60
3.4.1 Rationale and Data Source 60
3.4.2 Linguistic Operation 61
Chapter 4 Linguistic Analysis 63
4.1 Study I: Cohesion Difference between Diegetic and Mimetic Narrations 63
4.1.1 Adversative and Causal Conjunctions 63
4.1.2 Personal Pronominal Cataphoric Reference in Incipient Sentences 68
4.1.3 Syntactic Construction Reiteration 71
4.2 Study I: Corporeal Metaphor and Metonymy Difference 74
4.3 Study II: Cohesion 78
4.3.1 Adversative and Causal Conjunctions 78
4.3.2 Personal Pronominal Cataphoric Reference 79
4.3.3 Syntactic Construction Reiteration 81
4.4 Study II: Corporeal Metaphor and Metonymy 82
Chapter 5 Discussion 86
5.1 Bottom-up Logical Formation 86
5.2 Poetic Configuration of Body and Identity 92
5.3 Semantic Ongoingness and Affect 95
Chapter 6 Conclusion 100
6.1 Summary of the Major Findings 100
6.2 Contribution 102
6.3 Limitation and Suggestion for Future Research/Creation 105
6.4 Closing Remark 107
References 109
參考文獻 Abigail, B. (2004). Hélène Cixous: Writing and sexual difference. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aciman, A. (2007). Call me by your name. New York, NY: Picador.
The Art of Racing in the Rain Chapter 1: Summary and Analysis. (n.d.). In Litcharts. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-art-of-racing-in-the-rain/chapter-1
Atwood, M. (1998). The handmaid’s tale. New York, NY: Anchor Books. (Original work published 1985)
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962)
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Bal, M. (1983). The narrating and the focalizing: A theory of the agents in narrative. Style, 17(2), 234-269. Retrieved from http://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Style.html
Banfield, A. (2015). Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1982)
Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2), 87-128. Retrieved from https://www.dukeupress.edu/differences
Barcelona, A. (2003). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. (pp. 207-277). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
Barry, P. (2009). Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. (3rd ed.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
de Beauvoir, S. (1989). The second sex. (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1949)
Binhammer, K. (1991). Metaphor or metonymy? The question of essentialism in Cixous. Tessera 10, 65-79. Retrieved from https://tessera.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/tessera
Butler, O. (2005). Fledgling. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing. (Original work published 2007)
Call Me by Your Name Summary and Analysis of Part 1 (n.d.). In Gradesaver. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.gradesaver.com/call-me-by-your-name/study-guide/summary-part-1-if-not-later-when
Castle, G. (2007). The Blackwell guide to literary theory. [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fjpw/home.action
Chakraborty, M. N. (2007). Wa(i)ving it all away: Producing subject and knowledge in feminisms of colour. In S. Gillis, G. Howie, & R. Munford (Eds.), Third wave feminism: A critical exploration. (pp. 101-113). [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057%2F9780230593664
Chang, S. (1999). Shuxie ‘bukeneng’: Xisu de linglei shuxie [Writing “the impossible”: Cixous’ writing of the other]. Chung Wai Literary Quarterly, 27(10), 10-29.
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York, NY: Praeger.
Cixous, H. (1976). The laugh of the Medusa. (K. Cohen & P. Cohen, Trans.). Signs, 1(4), 875-893. Retrieved from http://signsjournal.org
Cixous, H. (1981). Castration or decapitation? (A. Kuhn, Trans.). Signs, 7(1), 41-55. Retrieved from http://signsjournal.org
Cixous, H. (1988). Extreme fidelity. In S. Sellers (Ed.), Writing differences: Readings from the seminar of Hélène Cixous. (pp. 9-36). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Cixous, H. (1990). Reading with Clarice Lispector. (V. A. Conley, Trans.). London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Cixous, H., & Clément, C. (1986). The newly born woman. (B. Wing, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Clough, P. T. (2007). Introduction. In P. T. Clough, & Jean Halley (Eds.), The affective turn: Theorizing the social. (pp. 1-33). [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nckutw/detail.action?docID=1169923
Clough, P. T. (2018a, May). Experimental writing: Beyond and of the human. In F.-C. Yang (Chair), Experimental writing: Beyond and of the human. Symposium conducted at the meeting of National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Clough, P. T. (2018b, May). Feminist theories and bodies. In L.-F. Cheng (Chair), Feminist theories and bodies. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cohn, D. (1978). Transparent minds: Narrative modes for presenting consciousness in fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Conley, V. A. (1984). Hélène Cixous: Writing the feminine. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Conley, V. A. (1990). Introduction. In V. A. Conley (Trans.), Reading with Clarice Lispector (pp. vii-xviii). London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62-101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (2003). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. (pp. 161-205). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Davidson, J., & Smith, M. (1999). Wittgenstein and Irigaray: Gender and philosophy in a language (game) of difference. Hypatia, 14(2), 72-96. Retrieved from http://hypatiaphilosophy.org/
Davis, S. (1991). Introduction. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader. (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2013). A thousand plateaus. (B. Massumi, Trans.). London, England : Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1988)
Derrida, J. (1981). Dissemination. (B. Johnson, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Diengott, N. (1988). Narratology and feminism. Style, 22(1), 42-51. Retrieved from http://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Style.html
Donoghue, E. (2011). Room. London, England: Picador. (Original work published 2010)
Enduring Love Summary and Analysis of Chapters One and Two (n.d.). In Gradesaver. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://www.gradesaver.com/enduring-love/study-guide/summary-chapters-one-and-two
The English Patient Chapter I Summary. (n.d.). In Sparknotes. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/englishpatient/section1/
Fayaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden. Metonymy in language and thought. (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Felman, S. (1975). Women and madness: The critical phallacy. Diacritics, 5(4), 2-10. doi: 10.2307/464958
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 280(1), 20-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x
Fledgling Analysis. (n.d.). In Enotes. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from https://www.enotes.com/topics/fledgling-59918
Fludernik, M. (2009). An introduction to narratology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Freud, S. (1977). On sexuality: Three essays on the theory of sexuality and other works. (J. Strachey, Trans.). London, England: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1905)
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar S. (1984). The madwoman in the attic: The woman writer and the nineteenth-century literary imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Givhan, J. (2009). Crossing the language barrier: Coalescing the mind/body split and embracing Kristeva’s semiotic in Margaret Edson’s Wit. Women and Language, 32(1), 77-81. Retrieved from https://www.womenandlanguage.org/
Goossens, L. (2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. (pp. 349-377). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. (3rd ed.). London, England: Hodder Education.
Gutwinsky, W. (1976). Cohesion in literary texts: A study of some grammatical and lexical features of English discourse. The Hague, Netherlands: De Gruyter Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.
The Handmaid’s Tale Summary and Analysis Chapter 1. (n.d.). In Cliffsnote. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/h/the-handmaids-tale/summary-and-analysis/chapter-1
The Handmaid’s Tale Summary and Analysis Chapter 2. (n.d.). In Cliffsnote. Retrieved March 23, 2019, from https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/h/the-handmaids-tale/summary-and-analysis/chapter-2
Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28(1), 1-30. doi: 10.2307/409987
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone Chapter 1 Summary. (n.d.). In Sparknotes. Retrieved from https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/harrypotter/section1/
Heideggar, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Huang, J.-Y. (2004). Towards a feminine/feminist/female discourse of Virginia Woolf. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.lis.nsysu.edu.tw//ETD-db/ETD-search-c/view_etd?URN=etd-0908104-162311
Humm, M. (1992). Feminisms: A reader. London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Irigaray, L. (1985a). Speculum of the other woman. (G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Irigaray, L. (1985b). This sex which is not one. (C. Porter & C. Burke, Trans.). New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jahn, M. (2007). Focalization. In D. Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative. (pp. 94-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jahn, M. (2017). Narratology: A guide to the theory of narrative. Retrieved from http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm
Jakobson, R., & Halle, M. (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Nicholls, A. P. (2004). The phonological store of working memory: Is it phonological and is it a store? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30(3), 656-674. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.656
Joyce, J. (1986). Ulysses. New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1922)
Kogawa, J. (1994). Obasan. New York, NY: Anchor Books. (Original work published 1981)
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kramer, C., Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1978). Perspectives on language and communication. Signs, 3(3), 638-651. Retrieved from http://signsjournal.org
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. (T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. (M. Waller, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lacan, J. (1988). The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book I. Freud’s paper on technique, 1953-1954. (J. Forrester, Trans.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lanser, S. S. (1986). Toward a feminist narratology. Style, 20(3), 341-363. Retrieved from http://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Style.html
Leech, G. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London, England: Longman.
Lispector, C. (2012). Água viva. (S. Tobler Trans.). New York, NY: New Directions. (Original work published 1973)
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. In D. Schffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McEwan, I. (1999). Enduring love. New York, NY: Anchor Books. (Original work published 1997)
McIntire, G. (2005). Heteroglossia, monologism, and fascism: Bernard reads The Waves. Narrative, 13(1), 29-45. Retrieved from https://ohiostatepress.org/Narrative.html
Mill, J. S. (1993) The subjection of women. [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/ (Original work published 1869)
Millet, K. (1977). Sexual politics. London, England: Virago.
Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Moi, T. (1997). Feminist, female, feminine. In C. Belsey & J. Moore (Eds.), The feminist reader: Essays in gender and the politics of literary criticism (pp. 104-116). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moi, T. (2002). Sexual/Textual politics: Feminist literary theory. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moriconi, C. K. (1996). Writing a woman’s sentence: Virginia Woolf’s l’ecriture feminine. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/1246/
Moses, C. G. (1998). Made in America: “French feminism” in academia. Feminist Studies, 24(2), 241-274. doi: 10.2307/3178697
Nerve (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nerve
Norrick, N. R. (1981). Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Obasan Summary: Chapter 1. (n.d.). In Sparknotes. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/obasan/section1/
Ondaatje, M. (1993). The English patient. New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1992)
On the Verge of (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20verge%20of
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. (2nd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269-316. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.007
Plato. (1968). The republic. (A. Bloom Trans.). In A. Bloom (Ed.), The republic of Plato (pp. 3-304). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published ca. 380 B.C.)
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia—A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3-34. Retrieved July 2, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318494178
Riemer, N. (2002). Remetonymizing metaphor: Hypercategories in semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 379-401. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.008
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (2002). Narrative fiction: Contemporary poetics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Room Summary. (n.d.). In Gradesaver. Retrieved March 23, 2019, from https://www.gradesaver.com/room/study-guide/summary
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328-350. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
Rowling, J. K. (2014). Harry Potter and the philosopher’s stone. London, England: Bloomsbury. (Original work published 1997)
Saeed, J. I. (2009). Semantics. (3rd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, Trans.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Selden, R., Widdowson, P., & Brooker, P. (2005). A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory. (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Sellers, S. (1988). Conversations. In S. Sellers (Ed.), Writing differences: Readings from the seminar of Hélène Cixous. (pp. 141-154). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Showalter, E. (1977). A literature of their own: British women novelists from Brontë to Lessing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (2006). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stanzel, F. K. (1986). A theory of narrative. (C. Goedsche, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, G. (2008). The art of racing in the rain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. (Vol. 2). [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~talmy/talmyweb/TCS.html
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.
Todorov, T. (2014). The categories of literary narrative. Papers on Language and Literature, 50(3), 381-424. Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/pll/ (Original work published 1966)
Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
The Underground Railroad Chapter 1. (n.d.). In Litcharts. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-underground-railroad/chapter-1-ajarry
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Wallace, M. L. (2000). Theorizing relational subjects: Metonymic narrative in The Waves. Narrative, 8(3), 294-323. Retrieved from https://ohiostatepress.org/Narrative.html
Whitehead, C. (2016). The underground railroad. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Whorf, B. L. (2012). Science and linguistics. In J. B. Carroll, S. C. Levinson & P. Lee (Eds.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 265-280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. (3rd ed.). (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1845). A vindication of the rights of woman: With structures on political and moral subjects [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://huso.stpi.narl.org.tw/ (Original work published 1792)
Woolf, V. (2006). Three guineas. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. (Original work published 1938)
Woolf, V. (2010). The Waves. Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions. (Original work published 1931)
Woolf, V. (2015). A room of one’s own [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi: 10.1002/9781118299210 (Original work published 1929)
Yu, G.-C. (2002). Yuguangzhong tan fanyi [Yu Guang Zhong talks about translation]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chuban gongsi [China Translation & Publishing Corporation].
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-08-29起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-08-29起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw