本文以「認知譬喻」（Conceptual metaphor, Kövecses , 2002），「認知映照模式」（Conceptual Mapping Model, Ahrens, 2002）及「物種關係鏈譬喻」（Great Chain of Being Metaphor, Lakoff 與Turner, 1989）為理論架構，研究華語經濟用語中「金」之延伸字—「金錢」、「資金」及「黃金」的譬喻用法，旨在探究華語中理解「金錢」、「資金」及「黃金」的認知機制、其譬喻發展原則及特性，與華語使用者對「金錢」、「資金」及「黃金」的認知思維。
研究結果顯示：（1）「金錢」、「資金」及「黃金」雖皆延伸自「金」，然其譬喻映照模式並不相同。黃金為本體（Source），和客體（Target）的映照關係以黃金最顯著之物理特質為認知映照基礎，故為特質取向，如「堅固是黃金」（SOLIDITY IS HUANG JIN）即以黃金為穩定的化學物質之特性分析而成。「金錢」與「資金」皆為客體，其與本體的映照關係為功能取向，如：「等待金錢開花結果」，便是強調金錢如植物ㄧ般有開花結果的功能。（2）「人類」是理解「金錢」與「資金」最常採用之本體，然而華語使用者對「金錢」與「資金」的認知思維不同。「金錢」在華語使用者的認知中是好的或具影響力的，如「金錢萬能」表現出我們對金錢的崇敬。然而對資金則無此認知特性，如：「資金結構的病症是多發性的」便暗指資金所面臨之困境。（3）人的認知思維符合「認知經濟效益」（cognitive economy），人們會採用他們最熟知的事物做為認知理解的方式，如用「人類」此ㄧ本體來理解「金錢」與「資金」對人們是最容易的認知策略。（4）華語的文化思想也反映在黃金的譬喻用法中，如「文學作品是黃金」及「言論是黃金」顯示華語文化中人們對文學作品及言論之重視。
藉由研究「金」此經濟用字之譬喻用法，我們發現譬喻不僅與我們的生活息息相關，其隱含之語意發展更能表達出人們不同的認知思維與文化意義。

This is a corpus based thesis which focuses on the metaphorical depictions of the financial linguistic expression jin1 金. The three related meanings, jin qian 金錢 'money,' zi jin 資金 'captial' and huang jin 黃金 'gold' are the research targets. Based on Kövecses's (2002) interpretations of metaphor, Ahrens's (2002) Conceptual Mapping Model and Lakoff & Turner's (1989) Great Chain of Being Metaphor approach, this thesis aims at discovering (1) whether jin qian, zi jin, and huang jin have similar or different metaphorical mapping processes, (2) the factors which influence their metaphorical interpretations, (3) how Taiwan Mandarin native speakers evaluate jin1 qian2, zi1 jin1 and huang2 jin1, and (4) the cognitive or cultural values that occur in the realizations and interpretations of jin qian, zi jin and huang jin.
This thesis has found: (1) jin qian, zi jin and huang jin involve different metaphorical mapping processes. Huang jin is the source domain (SD) which depicts other ideas in terms of its salient characteristics. Jin qian and zi jin are the target domains (TD), which are designated in terms of other concrete objects. (2) The SD-TD pairing of huang jin is quality-oriented whereas the SD–TD pairing of jin qian and zi jin is function-oriented. (3) Of all the SDs, “humans” are the most frequent SD in structuring jin qian and zi jin. Nevertheless, though jin qian and zi jin have similar conceptual metaphor, their lexicon varies and people’s perceptions towards them are different, too. Jin qian is depicted to be positive and powerful whereas zi jin is perceived neutrally. (4) Cognitive economy is crucial in depicting jin qian, zi jin and huang jin. For example, “personification” which eases people’s conceptualization is the favorite strategy in the conceptualization of jin qian and zi jin. The most salient characteristics of huang jin are chosen as the conceptual correspondences in the metaphorical extensions. (5) Taiwan Mandarin speakers’ cultural values are transpired in their metaphorical interpretations. For instance, WORD IS HUANG JIN and LITERARY WORK IS HUANG JIN are postulated because one’s statement and writing pieces are highly valued in Taiwan Mandarin culture.
In sum, though jin qian, zi jin and huang jin generate from the same financial linguistic expression, they have different metaphorical characteristics. Besides, people’s different perceptions, expectations, and language specific cultural values all matter in their metaphorical interpretations.

Ahrens, K. 2002. When Love Is Not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairings in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Yuchau E. Hsiao (ed.). Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 273-302.
Carroll, D.W. 2004. Psychology of Language. United States of America: Wadsworth.
Charteris-Black, J. & Ennis, T. 2001. The comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 249-266.
Charteris-Black, J. & Musolff, A. 2003. ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153-176.
Charteris-Black, J. 2000. Metaphor and vocabulary teaching in ESP economics. English for Specific Purpose, 19, 149-165.
Chung, Siaw-Fong (鐘曉芳). 2008. Cross-linguistic Comparisons of the MARKET Metaphors. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2). 141-175.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Ahrens, K. & Huang, Chu-Ren. (鐘曉芳, 安可思, 黃居仁). 2003. ECONOMY IS A PERSON: A Chinese-English Corpora and Ontological-based Comparison Using the Conceptual Mapping Model. In Proceedings of the 15th ROCLING Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 87-110.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Ahrens, K. & Huang, Chu-Ren. (鐘曉芳, 安可思, 黃居仁). 2005. Source Domains as Concept Domains in Metaphorical Expressions. In Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10-4, 553-570.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Ahrens, K. & Sung Ya-hui. (鐘曉芳, 安可思, 宋雅惠). 2003. STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A Corpus-based, Comparative Study of Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computational (PACLIC), 124-133.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Huang, Chu-Ren & Ahrens, K. (鐘曉芳, 黃居仁, 安可思). 2003. ECONOMY IS A TRANSPORTATION_DEVICE: CONTRASTIVE REPRESENTATION OF SOURCE DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE IN ENGLISH AND CHINESE. In Proceedings of the Special Session for the International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering (NLP-KE): Upper Ontology and Natural Language Processing (UONLP), 790-796.
Deignan, A. & Potter, L. 2004. A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1231-1252.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 1998. An introduction to language. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gaddard, C. 1998. Semantic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs Jr., R W. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 145–166.
Grundy, P. 2000. Doing pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, W. (1994). In R.E. Backhouse, New directions in economic methodology (pp. 343-367). London and New York: Routledge.
Hsieh, Shelley Ching-yu & Huang, Hsin-mei. (謝菁玉, 黃欣梅). 2008. A cognitive semantic and pragmatic study of Mandarin Chinese and German fixed expressions of money, wealth & poverty. In Workshop on Monies, Markets and Finance in China and East Asia. Heidelberg University, Heidelberg.
Huang, Hsin-mei & Hsieh, Shelley Ching-yu. (黃欣梅, 謝菁玉). 2008. A cognitive linguistics investigation into the metaphorical and metonymic expressions of the financial word jin 金 ‘gold.’ In Proceedings of The 11th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-11). National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.
Huang, Hsin-mei & Hsieh, Shelley Ching-yu. (黃欣梅, 謝菁玉). 2009. Taiwan Mandarin Speakers’ Underlying Perception of Money: The Metaphorical Extensions of jin1 qian2. Tamkang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. In press.
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 202–251
Lea, S. & Webley, P. 2006. Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of Behavioral and Brain Sciences (29: 161-209): Cambridge University Press.
McGlone, S. 2007. What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27(2), 109-126.
Morris, M. W., Sheldon, O. J., Ames, D. R. & Young, M. J. 2007. Metaphors and the market: Consequences and preconditions of agent and object metaphors in stock market commentary. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 174-192.
Schmidt, C. M. 2002. Metaphor and cognition: a cross-cultural study of indigenous and universal constructs in stock exchange report. Intercultural Communication, ISSN 1404-1634, issue 5.
Šeškauskienė, I. & Urbonaitė, J. 2007. Health Metaphor in Political and Economic Discourse: a Cross-Linguistic analysis. Studies About Languages (Kalbu Studijos), 11, 68-73.
Shao, Jun-hang (邵軍航). 2008. Great Chain of Being Metaphor: Understanding and Reflection. Journal of Shanghai Finance University, 2, 75-80.
Smith, G. P. 1995. How High Can a Dead Cat Bounce?: Metaphor and the Hong Kong Stock Market. Hong Kong Papers In Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 43-57.
Su, I-wen (蘇以文). 2000. Mapping in Though and Language as Evidence in Chinese. BIBLID, 18, 395-424.
Sun, Gui-li (孫桂里). 2009. Animal Fixed Expressions in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese: Gender Differences. National Cheng Kung University. M.A. thesis.
Tendahl, M. & Gibbs Jr. R.W. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (11), 1823-1864.
Tsao, Feng-fu, Tsai, Lee-chung & Liu, Xiu-ing. (曹逢甫, 蔡立中, 劉秀瑩). 2001. Body and Metaphor: the Primary Interface of Language and cognition (身體與譬喻:語言與認知的首要介面). Taipei: Crane.
Ungerer, F. & Schmidt, H-J. 2006. AN INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS. Malaysia: Pearson Educated Limited.
Waller, D., Lippa, Y. & Richardson, A. 2007. Isolating observer-based reference directions. Cognition, 1, 1-27.
White, M. 2003. Metaphor and economics: the case of growth. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 131-151.
Xu, Bing (徐冰). 2006. Study on Organism Metaphor Mapping in English Business discourse. Journal of Yanshan Finance University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 7(1), 20-23.
Young, J. J. 2001. Risk(ing) Metaphors. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 607–625
Zhou, He & Qiu, De-xiu. (周何, 邱德修). 2004. Mandarin Chinese Flexible Usages dictionary (國語活用辭典). Taipei: Wu Nan.