本研究藉由Charteris-Black（2004）所提出的「批判隱喻分析」及Halliday（1985）所主張的「語法隱喻分析」等兩種隱喻分析模式，從隱喻角度探討中華民國及美國憲法中「國家」一詞之現象及其所呈現之意義。研究結果顯示，「國家」之概念隱喻角色在中華民國憲法中較多為「保護者」、「設/建立者」和「獎勵者」的擬人化角色，而美國憲法中則為「擁有者」與「握有者」的角色。另外，中華民國憲法中之「國家」一詞多出現於主動句中之主詞位置，並扮演施事者之語意角色。相對地，美國憲法中之「國家」一詞多以介係詞片語形式作為後修飾語出現於被動句中，並扮演非施事者之語意角色。我們分析兩部憲法所呈現出的不同隱喻方式顯現了兩部憲法擬定者對「國家」的不同的意識型態。

This paper uses Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black 2004), and
Grammatical Metaphor Analysis (Halliday 1985) to analyze the conceptual and
grammatical metaphors of STATE appearing in the Constitutions of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States. We demonstrate that metaphors related to STATE in the R.O.C. Constitution mostly represent the state as PROTECTOR, ESTABLISHER and AWARDER, whereas the U.S. Constitution casts the state in the role of POSSESSOR or HOLDER. As for grammatical metaphors, the lexeme state in the R.O.C. Constitution tends to occur as an agent subject in active sentences. In the U.S. Constitution, in contrast, the lexeme state most often occurs in passive sentences, in a role other than that of agent, usually as part of a modifying prepositional phrase.
We propose that differences in the types of metaphors used in these two texts reflect differences in the framers’ intent, as well as differences in the two societies’ characterization of the power structure defined by the lexeme state.