本篇論文主要探討漢語中腳和足字詞的隱喻和換喻現象。主要採用四個理論基礎。Heine (1997) 提出某些身體部位的特徵可藉以產生其他非身體指涉的隱喻用法。Traugott 和 Dasher (2002) 主張由身體部位和感官所產生的動作經驗可表達其他概念。Radden 和 Kövecses (1999) 認為換喻的產生必在特定的理想認知模式中，並以所提出的兩大概念結構解釋換喻的產生。Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 和 Díez Velasco (2003) 認為換喻和隱喻關係不可分，並且以四種換喻和隱喻交互作用的模式，分析兩種譬喻用法的關係。
所分析的語料來自教育部線上國語辭典 (1998)，字詞語意參考中研院語言所搜辭尋字語庫查詢系統(2006)、林語堂當代漢英辭典電子版 (2006) 以及漢英搭配詞典 (1998)。
本文主要分為三部份。第一部份以Heine (1997) 的理論中，腳的空間概念作為投射的基礎，分析腳和足字詞所產生的隱喻用法。第二部份以Traugott 和 Dasher (2002) 的主張探討腳和足字詞中，表達站立、踏、跳、踢、行走和跑等等活動概念的詞所產生的隱喻用法。第三部份以Radden 和 Kövecses (1999) 提出的兩大概念結構作分類，討論腳和足字詞所產生的換喻形式。並根據Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 和 Díez Velasco (2003) 的四種模式分析腳的換喻詞和隱喻機制之間的關係。
研究發現，腳的空間概念延伸可表達物體的底部、活動的基礎結構、有限空間的底部、有限時間的開始和結束，表達人的身體狀態、內在基本組成條件：命運、才能和個性，以及表現情緒和社會人際關係。腳的具體基本活動可表達非具體的活動、指涉能力和社會人際關係。這些隱喻涵意的延伸皆符合Heine、Claudi 和 Hünnemeyer (1991) 以及Traugott 和 Dasher (2002) 所主張的語意轉換途徑。腳的換喻詞歸類為三部分：腳可代表人，腳可代表情緒，腳可代表腳的功能。在和隱喻機制的交互作用上，本論文中所列腳代表人的換喻詞幾乎產生在隱喻投射之後。腳代表情緒的換喻詞皆由單一換喻投射而成。腳代表功能的換喻詞中，僅有少數產生於隱喻投射之後，大部分皆為單一換喻投射而成。
隱喻和換喻機制的分析可幫助了解人類的認知過程，也反映出不同文化特殊的思考模式。

The aim of the thesis is to find out foot metaphors and metonymies from jiao3 腳 and zu2 足 expressions in Chinese. The theoretical background is: (a) Heine’s (1997) notion that certain body parts can refer to abstract schematic notions; (b) Traugott & Dasher’s (2002) approach that concepts got from physical movements and perception can refer to mental actions; (c) Radden & Kövecses’s (1999) metonymy-producing relationships that the environment of metonymic mapping can be categorized into the two general conceptual configurations—whole ICM (Idealized Cognitive Model) and its parts, and parts of an ICM, and (d) Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Díez Velasco’s (2003) four models of interaction between metonymy and metaphor.
The data are collected from Online Chinese Dictionaries of Ministry Education (1998). The research questions of the thesis are: (i) What abstract schemas does foot transfer the space property to? (ii) What virtual mental actions do foot actions refer to? (iii) What general conceptual configurations are foot metonymies categorized into? (iv) How do foot metonymies interact with metaphor?
The findings of the thesis are: (1) Foot metaphors refer to the bottom of objects, the foundation of structures, the basic element of events, the bottom of a measurable space, the end or beginning of a limited period of time, the basic element of being a person showing physical state, mental state, and social relationship. (2) Actual foot actions metaphorically refer to virtual mental actions showing talent and social relationship. (3) Foot metonymies are categorized into three conceptual configurations: FOOT FOR PERSON, FOOT FOR EMOTION, and FOOT FOR ACTION. (4) In interaction with metaphor, most metonymies of FOOT FOR PERSON category and some of FOOT FOR ACTION category have interaction with metaphor.
To sum up, body parts act as basic references for other abstract schemas through their shape, space, and function properties due to humans’ embodied conceptualization. With the same features mapped from body to other domains, metaphors and metonymies with body parts reflect humans’ metaphorical thinking (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Boers, Frank. (2003). Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in
conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4): 231-238.
Gak, V. G. (1998). Language transformations. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture
Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Dinara Beitel, Michael Harrington, & Paul Sanders. (1994). Taking a
stand on the meaning of stand: bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal
of Semantics, 11: 231-251.
Gluckberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Keysar, B. (1992). Metaphor understanding and
accessing conceptual schemas: reply to Gibbs. Psychological Review, 99(33):
578-581.
Goossens, Louis. (2003). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions in
linguistic actions. In Dirven René and Pörings Ralf (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy
in comparison and contrast, 349-378. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. (1991). From cognition to
grammar. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (Eds.), Approaches to
Grammaticalization, 1: 149-188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, Bernd. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University
Press.Ho, Qiu-yue (何秋月). (2002). A semantic study of auditory perception metaphors in
Chinese. M.A. Thesis. Taiwan: Province University.
Holland, D. & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hollenbach, Barbara E. (1995). Semantic and syntactic extensions of body-part terms in
Mixtecan: the case of face and foot. International Journal of American Linguistics,
61(2): 168-190.
Huang, Qing-xuan (黃慶萱). (1990). Xiucixue (Thetoric). Taipei: Sanmin.
Johnson, Mark. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about
the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.),
Metaphor and thought (2nd edition), 202-251. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4:
1-38.
Lin, Mon-mei (林孟美). (2005). Animal and plant terms & their metaphorical extensions
in Chinese lexicon: An empirical study. M.A. Thesis. Taiwan: National Tsing-HuaUniversity.
Lin, Qing-yuan (林清淵). (2003). The metaphors and metonymies of body parts in
Taiwanese Southern Min. M.A. Thesis. Taiwan: National Chung-Cheng University.
Mandler, J. M. (1999). Preverbal representation and language. In P. Bloom et al. (Ed.),
Language and space, 365-383. Boston: MIT Press.
Nanda, Serena. (1994). Cultural anthropology 5th edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Oakley, Todd. (2004) Elements of Attention: a new approach to meaning construction in
the human sciences. On-line. Available from
http://www.mind-consciousness-language.com/articles.htm.
Oakley, Todd. (2006). Image Schemas. In Dirk Greeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds,)
Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Ö zçaliskan, Seyda. (2003). Metaphorical motion in crossliguistic perspective: a
comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3): 189-228.
Ö zçaliskan, Seyda. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and
metaphorical motion: is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity.
J. Child Lang., 32: 291-318.
Pauwels, P. & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. (1995). Body parts in linguistic action. In
Louis Goossens, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie
Simon-Vandenbergen & Johan Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: metaphor,metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective, 35-70. Amsterdan: John.
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Quinn, N. & Dorothy Holland. (1987). Cultural model in language and thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radden, Günter. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors? In Dirven René and Pörings Ralf
(Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 407-434. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, Günter & Kövecses, Zoltan. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther,
Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17-59.
Amsterdan: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Olga Isabel Díez Velasco. (2003). Pattern of
conceptual interaction. In Dirven René and Pörings Ralf (Eds.), Metaphor and
metonymy in comparison and contrast, 489-532. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sheng, Ying. (2007). The role of culture in metaphor. US-China Foreign Language, 5(1):
74-81.
Shie, Jian-xiong (謝健雄). (2003). Metaphorized motion in English. Taiwan Journal of
Linguistics, 12: 95-120.
Sinclair, John (gen.ed.). (1998). Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publisher.
Stern, Gustaf. (1968). Meaning and change of meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Su, I-un (蘇以文). (2005). Inuurenzh (Metaphor and cognition). Taipei: National Taiwan
University.
Sweetser, Eve. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects
of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in semantic chance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsao, Feng- fu, Li-chung Tsai, & Hsiu-ying Liu (曹逢甫、蔡立中、劉秀瑩). (2001).
Shengtiyupiyu: yuyanyurenzhdeshouyaojiemian (Body and metaphor: the first
interface of language and cognition). Taipei: Crane.
Tsai, Li-chung (蔡立中). (1994). The metaphor of body-parts in Chinese. M.A. Thesis.
Taiwan: National Tsing-Hua University.
Tsai, Yu ( 蔡瑜). (2004). ShcongshentikongjianlunTaoYuan-mingdetianyuanshijie
(Discussion on Taoyuanming’s countryside from the aspect of bodily orientation).
Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 34(1): 151-180.
Tversky, Barbara. (1996). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In Paul Bloom, Mary A.
Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space, 463-491.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Viberg, Ake. (1983). The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics, 21: 123-162.
Wales, K. (1998). A dictionary of stylistics. London: Longman.
Wu, Jing-rong (吳景榮) (Ed.). (1981). Hanyingzidian (Chinese-English dictionary).
Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, Qun (王群). (2005). Cognitive analysis of hand metaphors. M.A. Thesis. North
China Electric Power University.
Yu, Ning. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(2): 59-92.
Yu, Ning. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zhao, Yi-ru (趙一儒). (2003). A corpus base linguistic investigation into sports metaphors.
M.A. Thesis. Province University.
Zho, Ho (周何). (1998). Guoyuhuoyongcidian (Chinese practical dictionary). Taichung:
Wu-Na.