請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/1100
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 江文瑜(Wen-Yu Chiang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Hsuan Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張亦萱 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-12T09:32:33Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-08-21 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-12T09:32:33Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-12 | |
dc.identifier.citation | References Ackerman, D. (2004). An alchemy of mind: The marvel and mystery of the brain. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Allen, P. (2010, May). The coffee triangle: Building cupping skills with triangulation. Roast Magazine, 49-59. Auvray, M., Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1016-1031. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005 Bergson, H., Paul, N. M., Palmer, W. S. (1913). Matter and memory. New York, NY: G. Allen Company, Limited. Caballero, R. (2007). Manner-of-motion verbs in wine description. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2095-2114. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.005 Caballero, R., Suárez-Toste, E. (2010). A genre approach to imagery in winespeak: Issues and prospects. Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World, 26, 265–288. doi:10.1075/hcp.26.15cab Carey, J. (2005). Brain facts. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience. Chandrashekar, J., Hoon, M. A., Ryba, N. J., Zuker, C. S. (2006). The receptors and cells for mammalian taste. Nature, 444(7117), 288-294. doi:10.1038/nature05401 Clausner, T. C., Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1-31. Croft, W., Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. London, England: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W., Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Croijmans, I., Majid, A. (2016). Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts. PLoS One, 11(6), e0155845. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155845 Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. London, England: Oxford University Press. Cutsforth, T. D. (1924). Synaesthesia in the process of reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 88-97. doi:10.2307/1413799 Cytowic, R. E. (1989). Synesthesia and mapping of subjective sensory dimensions. Neurology, 39(6), 849-850. doi:10.1212/WNL.39.6.849 Cytowic, R. E. (2002). Synesthesia: A union of the senses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cytowic, R. E. (2003). Touching tastes, seeing smells—and shaking up brain science what defines synesthesia? . Cerebrum, 4(3), 8. Cytowic, R. E., Cole, J. (2003). The man who tasted shapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Day, S. (1996). Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1-16. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature (Vol. 1). North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation. Dixon, R. M. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone?: And other essays in semantics and syntax (Vol. 107). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Dodge, E., Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57-91). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Forceville, C., Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor (Vol. 11). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Frawley, W. (2013). Linguistic semantics. Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge. Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Givón, T. (1970). Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives. Language, 816-837. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction (Vol. 1). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing. Goldstein, E. B., Brockmole, J. (2010). Sensation and perception (Vol. 8). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Grady, J. E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 35). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Group, P. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39. Hamilton, P. (2011). The proust effect: Oral history and the senses. In D. A. Ritchie (Ed.), The oxford handbook of oral history (pp. 219). Heyrman, H. (2005). Art and synesthesia: In search of the synesthetic experience. Paper presented at the Conferencia presentada en el First International Conference on Art and Synesthesia Primer Congreso Internacional sobre Arte y Sinestesia. Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Huang, C.-R., Hsieh, S.-K. (2010 ). Infrastructure for cross-lingual knowledge representation ─ Towards multilingualism in linguistic studies (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3). Retrieved from Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project http://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn2/query/ Huang, C.-R., Hsieh, S.-K., Hong, J., Chen, Y., Su, I., Chen, Y., Huang, S. (2010). Chinese wordnet : Design, implementation, and application of an infrastructure for cross-lingual knowledge processing. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 24(2), 14-23. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and cognition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Keen, S. (2006). A theory of narrative empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207-236. Kobayashi, M., Takeda, M., Hattori, N., Fukunaga, M., Sasabe, T., Inoue, N., . . . Watanabe, Y. (2004). Functional imaging of gustatory perception and imagery:“Top-down” processing of gustatory signals. Neuroimage, 23(4), 1271-1282. Kontukoski, M., Luomala, H., Mesz, B., Sigman, M., Trevisan, M., Rotola-Pukkila, M., Hopia, A. I. (2015). Sweet and sour: Music and taste associations. Nutrition Food Science, 45(3), 357-376. doi:10.1108/nfs-01-2015-0005 Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kövecses, Z. (2011). Contextual images as visual metaphors. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 19(2), 63-66. Lakoff, G. (1987a). Cognitive models and prototype theory. Concepts: Core Readings, 391-421. Lakoff, G. (1987b). Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(3), 219-222. Lakoff, G. (1987c). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: 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: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. (1984). Active zones. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. (2004). Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 2-24. Levinson, S. C. M., Asifa (2014). Differential Ineffability and the Senses. Mind Language, 29(4), 407-427. doi:org/10.1111/mila.12057 Lingle, T. R. (2001). The coffee cuppers handbook. Long Beach, CA: Specialty Coffee Association of America. Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding semantics. London, England: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd. Lu, C. (2011). Synesthetic generalization revisited: A new perspective based on onomatopoetic words. Paper presented at the The 11th annual meeting of the Japanese cognitive linguistics association, Tokyo, Japan. Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587-604. Mandler, J. M. (2005). How to build a baby III: Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 29, pp. 137). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Marks, L. E. (1974). On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. The American Journal of Psychology, 173-188. Marks, L. E. (1978). The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Marks, L. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Perceiving temporal patterns by hearing, touch, and vision. Perception Psychophysics, 42(3), 250-256. Marks, L. E. (1995). Intermodal similarity and cross-modality matching: Coding perceptual dimensions. In R. D. Luce, D. D. Hoffman, M. D'Zmura, G. Iverson, A. K. Romney (Eds.), Geometric representations of perceptual phenomena (pp. 207-233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marks, L. E. (1996). On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 39-66. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1101_3 Marks, L. E. (2014). The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. McBurney, D. H. (1986). Taste, smell, and flavor terminology: taking the confusion out of fusion. In H. L. Meiselman R. S. Rivlin (Eds.), Clinical measurement of taste and smell (pp. 117-125). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishers. Miller, G. A., Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Mozell, M. M., Smith, B. P., Smith, P. E., Sullivan, R. L., Swender, P. (1969). Nasal chemoreception in flavor identification. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 90(3), 367-373. Murphy, C., Cain, W. S. (1980). Taste and olfaction: Independence vs interaction. Physiology Behavior, 24(3), 601-605. O'Regan, K. J., Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939-973. Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245-264. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317-343. doi:10.1017/S1360674308002645 Paradis, C., Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22-40. doi:10.1080/10926488.2013.742838 Raskin, V., Nirenburg, S. (1995). Lexical semantics of adjectives (MCCS-95-288). Retrieved from New Mexico State University, Computing Research Laboratory Technical Report http://www.academia.edu/download/6309850/10.1.1.46.6972.pdf Rodríguez, M. R. C. (2001). Understanding in Seeing: A discourse perspective on image metaphor. Cuadernos de investigación filológica(27), 81-102. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 4(3), 328-350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1), 33-72. doi:10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33 Shen, Y., Gadir, O. (2009). How to interpret the music of caressing: Target and source assignment in synaesthetic genitive constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357-371. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.002 Simner, J., Hubbard, E. M. (2013). Oxford handbook of synesthesia. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Smith, D. V., Margolskee, R. F. (2001, March 1). Making sense of taste. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-sense-of-taste/ Spence, C., Levitan, C. A., Shankar, M. U., Zampini, M. (2010). Does food color influence taste and flavor perception in humans? Chemosensory Perception, 3(1), 68-84. doi:10.1007/s12078-010-9067-z Tsur, R. (2008). Toward a theory of cognitive poetics (2 ed.). East Sussex, England: Sussex Academic Press. Ullmann, S. (1959). The principles of semantics (Vol. 2). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers. Verhagen, J. V., Kadohisa, M., Rolls, E. T. (2004). Primate insular/opercular taste cortex: Neuronal representations of the viscosity, fat texture, grittiness, temperature, and taste of foods. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92(3), 1685-1699. doi:10.1152/jn.00321.2004 Vroon, P. A., van Amerongen, A., de Vries, H. (1997). Smell: The secret seducer. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus Giroux. Wang, Y.-W. (2010). The history, present and prospect of Taiwan coffee (台灣咖啡歷史、現況與展望). Agricultural Extension Newsletter Bimonthly 82, 3-8. Wang, Y.-W., Lin, C.-C. (2016). Taiwan coffee (台灣咖啡香). Scientific American, 124-127. Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., Beseoglu, H. (2006). The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. Paper presented at the The twenty-eighth annual conference of the cognitive science society, Lawrence Erlbaum, London. Willander, J., Larsson, M. (2007). Olfaction and emotion: The case of autobiographical memory. Memory Cognition, 35(7), 1659-1663. doi:10.3758/BF03193499 Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461-478. doi:10.2307/412571 Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19-34. doi:10.1515/jlse.2003.001 Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor, body, and culture. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 243–262). Cambridge, England: Canbridge University Press. Zampini, M., Spence, C. (2010). Assessing the role of sound in the perception of food and drink. Chemosensory Perception, 3(1), 57-67. doi:10.1007/s12078-010-9064-2 Zlatev, J. (2005). What's in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 29, pp. 313). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/1100 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本篇研究從認知語言學的角度出發,探討中文母語人士對風味的感受中,如何以跨感官的方式呈現。風味是直接的嗅覺與味覺體驗,然也普遍認為過於主觀、空虛、抽象,難以具體形塑與表達的感官經驗。而在經由文獻回顧後,可察覺中文母語人士在表達風味體驗時,常藉由非味覺與嗅覺的修辭,作為風味的表徵。本論文以綜觀的角度探討 風味描述中以跨感官用詞描繪的隱喻結構與種類,也從語用的視角檢視跨感官隱喻修辭的目的,進而觀察評鑑者(即說話者)與傾聽者共同建構與共鳴的現象。 本研究以質化的方式分析及檢視語料。對於飲食的感官評析,不少飲食(如紅酒、橄欖油、巧克力、咖啡等等)在製造過程中,必須經由繁瑣的官能鑑定流程,依據統一的風味輪作為量表,始能具體評斷食品的風味優劣。其中,尤以咖啡的風味表達尚未有深入的探討與研究。而咖啡統一的制式化咖啡風味輪(由Specialty Coffee Association of America制定),並無法全然與中文對應,並讓中文使用者理解。因此,為了補足現有研究的不足,本論文從錄像搜集共十小時咖啡官能鑑定過程,並人工轉寫錄影中的風味描述與評析逾兩萬字,作為研究之語料基礎。並提出三個跨感官表達結構 (1) 跨感官隱喻(即共感隱喻Synesthetic Metaphor)(2) 跨感官轉喻(即共感轉喻Synesthetic Metonymy)(3) 跨感官明喻(即共感明喻Synesthetic Simile),以進一步解析風味的表達,與不同知覺間跨感官的聯繫,或與情感、記憶、文化間的微妙關係。研究結果發現,評鑑者運用跨感官隱喻將視覺、聽覺與觸覺中的描繪詞轉而形容風味,跨感官轉喻則為概念式隱喻多是上、少是下(More is up, less is down)環環相扣,而跨感官明喻則藉由意象基模(Image schema)與原形理論(Prototype theory)以期在風味描述中達到說服、感性鋪陳、或感同身受等溝通目的。 再者,本文也提出不同於以往研究中跨感官表現的方向性,並提出可能的修改方向。最後,本論文旨在彰顯跨感官結構在知覺感受表達中所扮演的重要角色,並提倡在語言學中建立知覺與言談(Perception and Discourse)為一研究領域。藉由提出風味表達中的共感隱喻、共感轉喻、及共感明喻的結構,本論文探究嗅覺、味覺與其他知覺如何互動、整合。透過多模態隱喻詮釋,解析語言之於知覺與文化的關聯性,希望能跳脫單純的語言結構與詞彙的脈絡,從認知語言學的角度,進一步釐清人類認知與感受的歷程。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study aims to explore how flavor is conceptualized crossmodally in perceptions from the perspective of cognitive linguistics by analyzing data collected from coffee cupping events in Taiwan. Although the instinctive senses of smell, taste, and flavor are shared by all, the instrumental convergence of language seems impracticable for conveying such subjective, elusive, and abstract sensation. However, it is through language that our experience of flavor can be reconstructed, evaluated, and expressed (Dyer 2011). The gap between the inexpressible nature of the so-called primitive sensations (i.e., of smell and taste) and language is bridged through figurative expressions like metaphors and similes. Notwithstanding, rarely can we identify the Chinese counterparts of English flavor descriptors, nor is the language of savoring experiences in Chinese well studied. Although coffee cupping involves abundant crossmodal expressions, previous studies have scarcely addressed coffee cupping; instead, wine tasting is a more common topic. To bridge this research gap, the current study conducts a corpus-based investigation on cupping data involving 27,043 words from a 10-hour recording. Based on previous flavor researches (e.g., Paradis, 2013), this study places emphasis on the following three aspects to investigate the highly context-dependent synesthetic expressions (i.e., expressions of crossmodal mappings) found during coffee cupping: crossmodal metaphor (i.e., synesthetic metaphor), crossmodal metonymy (i.e., synesthetic metonymy), and crossmodal simile (i.e., synesthetic simile). However, different from the hypotheses of previous researches, we propose a novel directionality of perceptual transfers in crossmodal interactions. In fact, there is no particular rule that crossmodality in linguistic expressions must obey or violate a certain directionality in terms of the perceptual and conceptual mechanisms within sensory expressions. According to our findings, the crossmodal metaphors featuring interactions across touch, sight, taste, and smell are regarded as synesthetic metaphors; the crossmodal metonymy is in fact transferred from the general conceptual metaphor of MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN, and is referred as synesthetic metonymy; the crossmodal associating (i.e. synesthetic simile), analyzed through Image schema and Prototype theory, constructs two pathways of both human cognition and emotion in order to perceptually comprehend and emotionally participate flavor experiences. In sum, three complicated crossmodal formations (i.e., synesthetic metaphor, metonymy, and simile) have been established simply due to the human cognitive ability to demonstrate linguistic representation as a unity of senses (see Marks, 1978). Further, by thoroughly analyzing synesthetic forms and functions, the present study aims to deepen an understanding of the emerging role of crossmodality in flavor expressions through the elaboration of the linguistic mechanisms of flavor expressions. By analyzing the flavor expressions that occur in coffee cupping, the study turns over a new leaf in research efforts on the relations among language, cognition, and perception. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-12T09:32:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R03142002-1.pdf: 4650118 bytes, checksum: d1d300d4a703e8ad18ee4b5cbe213e79 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Verification letter from the Oral Examination Committee i Acknowledgments ii English Abstract iii Chinese Abstract iv Table of Contents vi Figures ix Tables x Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.0 Overview 1 1.1 Motivation and Background Information 2 1.2.1 Why Crossmodal Expressions of Flavor? 2 1.2.2 Why Coffee Cupping? 4 1.2 Aims of the Study 6 1.3 Significance 8 1.4 Organization of the Study 11 Chapter 2 Literature Review 13 2.1 Cognitive Mechanisms behind Gustatory Impressions 14 2.1.1 Simultaneously Combined Imagery from Two Perceptions 15 2.1.2 Conveying Flavor Images and Imagery 19 2.2 Crossmodal Interactions in Language 23 2.2.1 The Metaphor and Metonymy of Intersensory Similarities 26 2.2.2 Synesthetic Metaphor and General Regulations 30 Chapter 3 Methodology 34 3.1 Data 34 3.1.1 Coffee Cupping and Notes 36 3.1.2 Data Retrieval I: Identification of Crossmodal Metaphors and Metonymies (CMMIP) 40 3.1.3 Data Retrieval II: Similes of Gustatory Imagery 44 3.2 Method 46 3.2.1 Synesthetic Metaphor: Regulation and Directionality 47 3.2.2 Foregrounding and Backgrounding: the Zone Activation of Modifiers 49 3.2.3 Imagistic Simile: Prototype Effect and Image Schema 53 Chapter 4 Synesthetic Metaphor 58 4.1 Types of Synesthetic Metaphor 59 4.4.1 Flavor is Sight 60 4.4.2 Flavor is Sound 65 4.4.3 Flavor is Touch 66 4.2 Directionality and Proposal 68 4.3.1 Directionality and Regulations 69 4.3.2 Proposal 73 Chapter 5 Synesthetic Metonymy 75 5.1 Foregrounding and Backgrounding 76 5.1.1 Density: Nong and Dan 76 5.1.2 Thickness: Hou and Bo 82 5.1.3 Intensity: Zhong 86 5.2 MORE IS HEAVY, DENSE, AND THICK 89 Chapter 6 Synesthetic Simile 92 6.1. Imagistic Mapping 92 6.1.1 Narrowing: the Prototype Effect 93 6.1.2 Broadening: the Image Schema 99 6.1.3 Narrowing and Broadening 103 6.2. Crossmodality in Imagistic Similes 106 6.2.1 Visual Image, Tactility, and Flavor 108 6.2.2 Multisensory Recollection from Flavor 110 Chapter 7 Conclusion 113 7.1 Recapitulation 113 7.1.1 The Shared Mechanism 115 7.1.2 Communicative Functions of Synesthetic Expression 118 7.2 Implications and Prospects 120 References 123 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 點亮咖啡香:從認知語言學理解風味的跨感官表達 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Brighten Up Your Coffee! Crossmodal Expressions of Flavor in Taiwan Mandarin within a Cognitive Linguistic Framework | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 魏美瑤(Jennifer Meei-Yau Wei),呂佳蓉(Chiarung Lu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 跨感官表達,風味,共感隱喻,共感轉喻,共感明喻,多模態隱喻,言談分析,知覺感受與語言,咖啡杯測評鑑, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | crossmodal expression,flavor,synesthetic metaphor,synesthetic metonymy,synesthetic simile,multimodal metaphor,discourse analysis,perception and language,coffee cupping, | en |
dc.relation.page | 129 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803084 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-13 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf | 4.54 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。