论文标题:语言转喻的认知阐释
A Cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language
论文作者 李勇忠
论文导师 熊学亮,论文学位 博士,论文专业 英语语言文学
论文单位 复旦大学,点击次数 83,论文页数 196页File Size7303k
2004-04-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_68076047/ 转喻;隐喻;理想化认知模型;激活;构式语法;压制;言语行为转喻;语用推理;语用功能
Metonymy;Metaphor;ICM;Activation;Construction grammar;Coercion;Speech act metonymy;Pragmatic inferencing;Pragmatic functions
传统研究一直把转喻视为词语之间的相互借代，它被当作一种文学和修辞的工具。从它的释义可见一斑，“转喻又称为借代，它是指借用与本体有着现实的实际联系的事物的名称来代替本体事物”。随着认知语言学在过去的几十年中的发展，人们普遍认识到转喻与隐喻一样，不仅仅是一种语言手段，更是一种认知和推理的过程。当代认知语言学把隐喻和转喻看作是同为重要的认知机制，影响着我们的知识结构。正如论文题目所示，该研究旨在从认知的角度阐释转喻。转喻与思维密不可分，这已经是认知语言学界不争的事实。从广义而言，转喻充斥着人类的语言交际，它直接影响着我们的知识和思维。论文第三章主要探讨转喻和隐喻的关系以及转喻思维的基本特性。在回顾学界具有代表性的转喻释义后，我们提出了更为精致的、操作性更强的定义。“激活”，作为一个在转喻运作机制中不可替代的术语，在我们的释义中被赋予了重要的位置。同时，我们还研究了在转喻运作过程中具有极强阐释力的典型理论，如Langacker的参照点和活跃区转喻，视角突显以及范畴延伸理论。毋庸讳言，转喻的运作机制还应该包括诸如社会、文化和修辞等方面。我们在第二章回顾了以往结构主义和语用学对转喻所作出的阐释。而转喻的语用功能以及转喻与语用推理的关系问题，我们在论文第六章探讨。当前的认知语言学一致认为，转喻不是简单的修辞装饰，它是在同一理想化认知模型(ICM)中运作的一种概念现象和认知过程，“邻近性”是大多数转喻定义的核心概念，传统研究把邻近关系看作是现实世界的具体的空间接近关系，而认知语言学则把它理解为概念层面上的接近关系。Lakoff(1987) 更是把转喻邻近放到同一理想化认知模型的框架中来审视；Croft(1993) 从体现在同一认知域或域矩阵(domain matrix)的百科知识出发来考察转喻的邻近性；Blank(1999) 和Panther & Thornburg(1999) 分别启用框架和脚本两概念来描述概念邻近网络。我们认为理想化认知模型更能概括转喻过程的本质，因此，在第四章，理想化认知模型成了研究的重点。我们把处于同一理想化认知模型中的能生成转喻的概念关系称为“转喻生成关系”。处于ICM中的转喻生成关系主要产生于两个高层概念结构中，它们是:(l)整体ICM与各部分;(2) IcM中的部分与部分。整体与部分结构生成借代人和事物的转喻，部分与部分结构主要生成表达事件和状态的述谓印redications)转喻。ICM在转喻的理解和生成过程中起着非常重要的作用。 转喻的分类向来是学界关注的焦点，它关涉到对转喻本质的理解。通过对以往较有影响的分类的比较，我们赞同Ruiz de Mendoza的看法，间约地并高度图式化地把转喻分为“低层”和“高层”两类，高层转喻对语法结构有重要影响，我们把它放在第五章单独研究。 转喻对语言结构的影响是最近才被学界认识到的，至今，就我们所知，只有为数不多的学者注意到了这一重要的现象。Panther和们沁mburg是其中的代表人物。另外Hobbe(2001)也对此作出重要贡献，但他采取了与Panther&Thomburg不同的研究路向，从形式化的角度研究转喻对语言结构的影响是他的研究特色。我们借鉴Panther&Thomburg的方法，结合目前较有影响的“构式语法”从认知角度来考察转喻与语法构式的关系。在第五章，我们分析了一系列非动态谓词与构式的关系，并探讨了它们进入典型行动构式的充要条件。同时提出了一种字面上属于非动态谓词进入行动构式的压制性解释。而且，借助自然推理图式“结果代行动”这一概念转喻解释了静态构式中的构式义对词汇义的压制机制。本章的焦点主要集中在概念转喻“结果代行动”与压制的关系上，分析了一些典型的构式如be+Adj/NP，被动句和否定句等。本章的后半部分讨论了两种构式环乳以考Xdoing片和肠at3 that尸内的词汇义对构式义的压制，对环巩口了含功口才脚构式作了比较深入的分析，指出该构式的原型意义会转喻性地生成至少两种更具体的意义:分类义和致使义。换言之，两种意义是由原型义的详细解释“认飞歇15 a relev匆吐proPerty ofthatN”促成的。 随着越来越多的人认识到转喻对语言结构的影响以及转喻在话语理解中的作用，压制与转喻的关系将会逐渐成为认知语言学研究的新课题。据Panther&Thomburg(1 999b)，概念转喻至少有如下两种解释作用:其一，当构式义与另一意义(词汇义或另一构式义)发生冲突时，它能帮助我们推导出压制义。当句子中无法建立如“结果代行动”这样的转喻关系，则压制失败，句子不合格。其二，当句子呈现构式的原型义时，概念转喻可以帮助我们识别具体的意义。在这种情况下，概念转喻如“类属代具体”(GENERIC FOR SPECIFIC)(分类义)和“效果代原因”(EFFECT FOR CAUSE)(致使义)可以把构式义转化为更加具体的意义。 转喻与语法结构的关系研究前景看好，我们已在国内外语类核心刊物发表了两篇相关的论文，本文是此基础上的扩展和延伸。该领域研究区间甚大，以后我们还将作进一步的研究。 Panther&Tho叮lburg从认知的角度来研究间接言语行
Metonymy is traditionally viewed as a figure of speech that involves a process of substituting one linguistic expression for another. It was basically thought of as a matter of language, especially literary or figurative language. This view is reflected in standard definitions, which tend to describe metonymy as "a figure of speech that consists in using the name of one thing for that of something else with which it is associated". In the last decades, with the advent of cognitive linguistics, it is generally believed that metonymy as well as metaphor is more than a linguistic device; rather it is seen as a reasoning and inferential process. Contemporary cognitive linguists generally view both metaphor and metonymy as fundamental to the structuring of our conceptual knowledge.As the title suggests, this dissertation is intended to study metonymy from the perspective of cognition. Metonymy and thought are closely related to each other, which has been accepted by almost all cognitive linguists. In a broad sense, metonymy is prevalent in human language, it structures our knowledge, influences our thinking. Chapter three is mainly about the relation between metaphor and metonymy, the basic characters of metonymic thinking. After surveying some representative definitions, we have formulated our own working definition which in our opinion is more elaborated. Activation, which plays an irreplaceable part in the mechanism of metonymy, has been attached great importance. Apart from this, a few typical mechanisms such as Langacker"s reference point and active zone metonymy, perspective salience and category extension have been commented on.Without doubt, the operational mechanisms should include other aspects, such as social, cultural and rhetorical. We have surveyed the previous accounts of metonymy contributed by structuralism and pragmatics in chapter 2. As for the pragmatic functions of metonymy, we purposefully leave them to chapter six together with the relations between metonymy and pragmatic inference.Current cognitive linguists generally claim that metonymy is more than a mere rhetoric device, rather it is regarded as a conceptual phenomenon and a cognitiveprocess which operates within an idealized cognitive model.The notion of "contiguity" is at the core of most definitions of metonymy. Traditional approaches locate contiguity relationships in the world of reality, whereas cognitive approaches locate them at the conceptual level. Lakoff (1987) accounts for metonymic contiguity within the framework of idealized cognitive models (ICMs), Croft (1993) deals with contiguity relations in terms of encyclopedic knowledge representing within a domain or domain matrix. Blank (1999) and Panther and Thornburg (1999) describe the network of conceptual contiguity by using the notion of frame and scenario, respectively. We believe that ICM can capture metonymic processes best. This is the reason why we put ICM and metonymy into the cental focus hi chapter four. We call conceptual relationships within an ICM which give rise to metonymy "metonymy-producing relationships". ICMs which include metonymy-generating relationships are mainly subsumed under two high-level conceptual configurations: (i) whole ICM and its parts and (ii) parts of an ICM. The whole-part configuration produces metonymies involving things, while the part-part configuration primarily applies to metonymies involving predications in events and states. We strongly believe that ICM plays a significant part in the generation and understanding of metonymy.Since classification of metonymies is connected to the desire to understand the exact nature of metonymy, we have compared some of the influential taxonomies and put forward a simple and schematic classification: low-level metonymies and high-level metonymies. We believe that high-level metonymies play an important role in grammatical structure, which we discuss in chapter five.It is not until very recently that people begin to realize the impact of metonymy on linguistic structure. So far, to the best of
|
