人類的身體是我們用以理解周圍世界的概念基礎，而此體現同時影響了我們的認知及語言使用，因此，身體部位在語言上的呈現可用以表達許多觀念，例如位置、時間、情緒、態度等等。過往許多研究都基於認知語言學的理論框架來研究身體部位詞的用法，特別針對字典中的慣用語，尤其是非字面意義的身體部位詞組提出解釋，而這些非字面上的語意通常經由隱喻、轉喻、兩者的結合所產生。然而，身體部位詞在真實語境中的用法卻受到較少注意，尤其是它們常用的詞組、詞組的語意以及詞組偏好單複數詞形之間的關係。

為補足先前研究之不足，本研究旨在對身體部位詞提出更周詳觀察，我們將目標鎖定在四個發音器官：嘴巴(MOUTH)、嘴唇(LIP)、舌頭(TONGUE)、牙齒 (TOOTH)，因為先前很少有研究對它們提出系統性的比較。為觀察真實語言使用， 我們從美國當代英語語料庫提取語料。由於此四個發音器官詞非常高頻，數量眾多，本研究的語料分析分為兩階段：「詞組觀察」及「詞組確認」。在所觀察到的 詞組中，我們首先將詞組分為「已知詞組」及「新增詞組」，接著在各組中，更進 一步將詞組依照他們的語意分類。研究結果指出，在真實語境中這四個詞最常使用 的詞組之語意與言辭、說話及對特定事件的身體反應相關。本研究另外發現其它帶 有模糊語意的詞組符合 Kövecses (2000)所提出的借喻 – PHYSIOLOGICAL AND EXPRESSIVE RESPONSES OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION。此外，詞組之單複數 使用可能受以下因素影響：發音器官的固有特性、詞組的語意強調、語法限制或慣用語的使用常規。

The human body serves as a conceptual basis through which we understand the world around us. This embodied experience affects our cognition as well as our language. Words or phrases of body parts are accordingly commonly used in daily language to convey various notions such as location, time, emotion, attitude, and so on. Much research has investigated body-part expressions, particularly those documented in dictionaries, such as idioms, within the cognitive theoretical framework. While past studies have significantly contributed to unveiling the cognitive processes of those body- part expressions with non-literal meanings, such as metaphor, metonymy, or the blend of the two, little attention has been paid to their use in authentic contexts. Particularly, the relationship between their patterns, the meanings of these patterns, and the preferred forms (i.e., singular or plural) of the patterns has not been fully explored.

To bridge the gaps, this study aims to provide a comprehensive investigation into body-part expressions, focusing on their frequent patterns, forms and meanings. The targets of this study are four speech-organ words MOUTH, LIP, TONGUE, and TOOTH, as there has been limited research providing a systematic comparison among them. To achieve these goals, we extracted naturally occurring data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Due to the large numbers of these four speech-organ words, the data analysis contains two stages: pattern observation and pattern confirmation. The identified patterns were initially grouped into documented patterns and additional patterns. Within each group, these patterns were further categorized based on their meanings. The results reveal that the most frequent patterns in authentic contexts are associated with spoken words, the act of speaking, and physical responses to certain events. This study also discovered additional patterns with ambiguous meanings that conform to the metonymy PHYSIOLOGICAL AND EXPRESSIVE RESPONSES OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION (Kövecses, 2000). Moreover, the preferred and exclusive use of singular or plural forms may be attributed to the natural characteristics of the speech organ, semantic emphasis of the pattern, grammatical constraint, or idiomatic convention.

Bagasheva, A. (2017). Cultural Conceptualisations of MOUTH, LIPS, TONGUE and TEETH in Bulgarian and English. In F. Sharifian, Advances in Cultural Linguisitcs (pp. 189-221). Singapore: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_10

Black, M. (1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55(1), 273-294.

Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and thought (pp.19-41). Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, L. J. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse & Society, 18(2), 197-222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507073376

Charteris-Black, J. (2003). Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and symbol, 18(4), 289-310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_5

Cheng , W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. (2006). From n-gram to skipgram to congram. nternational journal of corpus linguistics, 11(4), 411-433. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.4.04che

Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings. De Gruyter Mouton. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.2.161

Deignan, A., & Potter, L. (2004). A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1231-1252. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.010

Ellis, N. C. (2008). The periphery and the heart of language. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. In Granger, S., & Meunier, F, Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books.

Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsisheory of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fletcher, W. (2012). kfNgram. From http://kwicfinder.com/kfNgram/kfNgramHelp.html

Geeraerts, D. (2009). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001

Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00517-5

Gibbs Jr, R. W., Lima, P. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323-340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323

Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. University Microfilms.

Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (2008). Introduction: the many faces of phraseology. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier, Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. XIX-XXVIII). Amsterdam / Philadelphis: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.04gra

Group Pragglejaz. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.

Hsu, H.-l. (2017). Word Component Structures, Meaning Distribution and Lexicalization: Linguisitc Usages Containing Body-Part Terms lian/mian, yan/mu and zui/kou in Taiwan Mandarin. Master's thesis. Taipei, Taiwan: National Chengchi University.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773

Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approachto the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4

Hunston, S., & Su, H. (2017). Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 567-593. doi: doi:10.1093/applin/amx046

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago press.

Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2013). The Metaphor–Metonymy Relationship: Correlation Metaphors Are Based on Metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75-88. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498

Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind & its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books. doi: 10.5860/choice.37-0239

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Language Teaching Publication

Lindquist, H., & Levin, M. (2008). Foot and mouth: Them phrasal patterns of two frequent nouns. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier, Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective . Amsterdam / Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/z.139.15lin

Li, J., & Ye, T. (2023). Patterns and functions of I in academic writing: From a local grammar approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, 101186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101186

Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English : A Corpus-Based Approach. New York, the United States: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236146.001.0001

Nissen, U. K. (2011). Contrasting body parts: metaphors and metonymies of MOUTH in English, Danish and Spanish. In Z. Maalej , & N. Yu, Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages cultures (pp. 71-92). Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.31.07nis

Patterson, K. J. (2018). Understanding metaphor through corpora: A case study of metaphors in nineteenth century writing. Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351241090

Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguisitcs, 17(4), 409-441. doi: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001

Radden, G. (2001). The folk model of language. Metaphorik.de, 01, 55-86.

Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings, Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407-434). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.3.407

Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (2006). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. Metonymy in language and thought, 4, 17-60. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad

Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguisitcs: the state of the art. In F. Sharifian, Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4056- 6_1

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.

Steen, G. (2008). When is metaphor deliberate? Second Metaphor Festival.
Stockholm. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001

Steen, G. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 26-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste

Steen, G. (2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1-24. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001

Steen, G. (2023). Thinking by metaphor, fast and slow: Deliberate Metaphor Theory offers a new model for metaphor and its comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology(14), 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1242888

Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amesterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14

Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in context. Cambridge, Massachusetts, England: The MIT Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4568.001.0001

Stubbs, M. (2007a). An example of frequent English phraseology: distributions, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti, Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on. Amsterdam: Brill.

Stubbs, M. (2007b). Quantitative data on multi-word sequences in English: The case of the word 'world'. In M. Hoey, M. Mahlberg, M. Stubbs, & W. Teubert, Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and Analysis. London: Continuum.

Stubbs, M. (2009). The Search for Units of Meaning: Sinclair on Empirical Semantics. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 115-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn052

Su, H. (2017). Local grammars of speech acts: An exploratory study. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 72-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.02.008

Su, H. (2020). Patterns, local grammars, and the design of English teaching. materials. ELT Journal, 74(1), 73-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz046

Su, H., & Wei, N. (2018). “I’m really sorry about what I said” A local grammar of apology. Pragmatics, 28(3), 439-462. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17005.su

Su, H., & Zhang, L. (2020). Local grammars and discourse acts in academic writing: A case study of exemplification in Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, 100805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100805

Trantescu, A. M. (2018). English mouth idioms and their Romanian equivalents: A cognitive perspective. Annals of the University of Craiova, Series: Philology, English, 1(XIX), 173-186.

Wilks, Y. (2005). REVEAL: the notion of anomalous texts in a very large corpus. Tuscan Word Centre International Workshop, (p. 83). Tuscany, Italy.

Yu, N. (2011). Speech organs and linguistic activity/function in Chinese. In Z. Maalej, & N. Yu, Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages cultures (pp. 117-148). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: http://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.31.10yu

Zhang, L., Jiang, R., & Zhang, J. (2024). ‘Table 1 shows that...’: A local grammar of graphic data commentary in discourse of Economics. English for Specific Purposes, 74, 68-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2024.01.001