中国学术话语对“灰色收入”的讨论形成了一套稳定的隐喻系统。本文以1993—2017年间CSSCI来源期刊中以“灰色收入”为关键词的论文摘要为语料，考察这套隐喻系统的构成、运作方式及其认知功能。研究发现，学术话语中“灰色收入”的隐喻建构呈现两个层次：在成因命名上，学者们使用空间隐喻（“漏洞”“盲区”“缝隙”）将问题定位于制度的空隙处，在认知上将抽象的制度缺陷转化为可感知的物理空间；在治理表述上，学者们使用从“毒瘤”到“阳光”的病理/光照隐喻，分别承担了问题严重性的论证和方案有效性的论证。这套隐喻系统在二十余年间保持了高度稳定，并跨场域进入官方话语。论文进一步指出，隐喻资源的分布与归因对象的认知属性密切相关——当问题被建构为制度属性的缺失时，空间隐喻和病理隐喻可以充分运作；当问题被建构为利益关系时，隐喻资源显著匮乏。这一发现揭示了学术话语中隐喻使用的认知边界。

Chinese academic discourse on "grey income" has developed a stable system of metaphors. Based on a corpus of abstracts from CSSCI-source journals between 1993 and 2017 that use "grey income" as a keyword, this paper examines the composition, operational mechanisms, and cognitive functions of this metaphorical system. The study finds that the metaphorical construction of "grey income" in academic discourse operates on two levels: in naming the causes, scholars employ spatial metaphors (e.g., "loopholes," "blind spots," "gaps") to locate the problem in the interstices of the institutional framework, cognitively transforming abstract systemic deficiencies into perceivable physical spaces; in framing governance solutions, scholars deploy pathological/light metaphors ranging from "cancer" to "sunlight," which respectively serve to argue for the severity of the problem and the effectiveness of proposed measures. This metaphorical system has remained highly stable over more than two decades and has transcended disciplinary boundaries to enter official discourse. The paper further points out that the distribution of metaphorical resources is closely related to the cognitive attributes of the attributed causes—when the problem is constructed as a deficiency in institutional design, spatial and pathological metaphors can operate fully; when the problem is constructed as a matter of conflicting interests, metaphorical resources are significantly scarce. This finding reveals the cognitive boundaries of metaphor use in academic discourse.