基于投射的隐喻篇章研究
|
摘要
隐喻是以彼物对此物进行理解和体验的一种方式,它通过从源域到目的域的跨域投射发挥认知、表达和情感功能。隐喻是个多面体,它既是认知的,也是语言和修辞的,前者是第一位的,后者是前者的衍生物;它既是个人的,也是社会和文化的;它既可以通过具体、简单、熟悉的事物来方便、省力地认知抽象、复杂、陌生的事物(常规情况下),也可以反向用之,用抽象、复杂、陌生的事物来认知具体、简单、熟悉的事物,以达到模糊、陌生、新奇的效果。
隐喻研究自古以来长盛不衰,二十世纪末的“隐喻狂热”更是把它推向跨学科研究的焦点。文章从认知语言学和语篇分析的视角对隐喻投射与隐喻篇章之间的关系进行研究,具体包括隐喻投射的内容、类型、特点及产生的认知力,隐喻篇章的内部组织形式,隐喻投射与不同篇章功能之间的关系以及隐喻篇章多维分析。
隐喻是概念性的,而概念是由实体、特征、关系及知识构成的抽象的意象图式。隐喻投射通过把源域的实体、特征、关系及知识投射到目的域上,从而为认知目的域提供结构、为目的域图式的具体化提供选择、为有关目的域的推理提供推理模式,为评价目的域有关实体提供依据。而且传统充当源域的概念可以方便地,毫不费力地对目的域进行概念化。隐喻投射是系统的、部分的、方向性的,且遵循“对应原则”。文章提出六种投射模式,分别为:
模式1:实体投射
模式2:实体+特征投射
模式3:实体+关系投射
模式4:知识投射
模式5:实体+关系+特征投射
模式6:实体+关系+特征+知识投射隐喻投射与所形成的篇章密切相关。“篇章”是“一段能以认知、语言、语境三位一体的方式完成描写、说明、论证和叙事中任一篇章功能的相对完整的书面语言”。篇章可小至一个句子,大至一篇文章,甚至一本书。小的篇章可组构成大的篇章,大的篇章亦可切分为小的篇章。
“隐喻篇章”是指“一段在单个或多个隐喻影响所及范围之内,能以认知、语言、语境三位一体的方式完成描写、说明、论证和叙事中任一篇章功能的相对完整的书面语言”。隐喻篇章中的隐喻或为隐性,或为显性,因而有隐性隐喻篇章和显性隐喻篇章之分。显性隐喻篇章又可分为离散式隐喻篇章和连贯式隐喻篇章,二者又都涵盖单项式和多项式隐喻篇章。由于离散式(不管是单项式还是多项式)隐喻篇章中隐喻的出现无规律可循,研究重点为连贯式隐喻篇章。连贯式隐喻篇章可分为单项连贯式和多项连贯式:单项连贯式下分普通单项延伸式和单项寓言式,其中单项延伸式在所有隐喻篇章中最具原型性质;多项连贯式下分六种子类型,即多项寓言式、并列式、递进式、转折式、交替式和互补式。隐喻篇章也可能以上述各种类型的混合式出现。详情请参照第71页的“建议的隐喻篇章分类图”。隐性隐喻篇章鉴于其中的隐喻为隐性的,因此很难有复杂的组构变化,多以单项延伸式为主。
隐喻投射可实现描写、说明、论证及叙事等常见篇章功能。篇章功能的区分是相对的,具体取决于它所服务的主要目的:一个描写性篇章在另一环境下完全可能是说明性篇章;论证性篇章可能涉及描写及说明;而叙事篇章往往有论证……文章假定特征投射通常与静态描写有关,关系投射通常与叙事及动态描写有关,知识投射通常与论证有关,而说明则可能由任何一种投射实现,具体因写作焦点而不同。有些篇章涉及单一功能,但更常见的是不同功能组合起来构建更复杂的篇章,而篇章功能是由占主导地位的功能决定的。
篇章的隐喻性有度的变化。从源域投射到目的域的元素越多,隐喻投射就越完整。完整程度高的投射涵盖完整程度低的投射,因此,当分析一个完整程度高的隐喻投射时,可能需要将其分解为完整程度低的投射,以对篇章的不同侧面进行建构,它们合力完成对篇章的总体建构。
论文对隐喻叙事篇章进行了详细探索。论文之所以用较大篇幅探讨叙事篇章的建构主要是因为叙事篇章是所有篇章中最完整的,它往往涉及描写,有时涉及说明,而且总是要张扬一定的观点。文章以美国“爵士乐时代”作家菲茨杰拉德的著名短篇小说《重访巴比伦》为例,对隐喻投射与叙事篇章中的场景、人物、情节及主题建构进行研究,指出实体投射为篇章中的人物、场景、主要事件及主题进行结构布局,实体+特征投射对人物实体和场景实体进行建构,并实现对相关实体的评价;实体+关系+特征投射按时间顺序加以整合便可对事件、情节进行很丰满的建构;知识投射则为情节发展提供因果关系,从而凸显篇章主题。
论文结合话语分析理论和关联理论,建立了由衔接、语境、连贯、隐含意义推理及批评等五个维度构成的隐喻篇章多维分析模型。这五个维度可顺次启动,其中有些维度则可能反复或同时启动。在这个过程中隐喻的新颖性、复杂性及语义开放性等参数,篇章接受者的认知能力及想象力,以及两个关联原则均发挥作用。
衔接是分析的起点,目的是弄清一个隐喻篇章到底“说”了什么。它由词汇衔接、语法衔接和隐喻衔接三种手段实现,是分析推理的基础。语境是指由言内语境和言外语境构成的认知环境。连贯是指篇章内部的逻辑性,由语义关联、主题关联、语境关联和隐喻关联实现。其中隐喻关联的基础是隐喻衔接,二者由系统的隐喻投射来实现。隐含意义推理由隐含意义假设建构和隐含意义假设确认两步构成。最后一维是批评,除了非隐喻篇章常规批评涉及的内容外,还需对隐喻在篇章中的作用进行评价。详情请参照第111页“隐喻篇章分析流程图”。
本模式适用于由新颖隐喻构建的篇章;对于由常规隐喻构建的篇章,篇章分析过程可能直接由第一维的衔接直接跳转至第四维的隐含意义推理。
文章以美国诗人沃尔特·惠特曼《草叶集》中的一首诗“一只不聒噪而又耐心十足的蜘蛛”为例进行详细分析。
论文采用理论研究与实证例析和内省相结合的研究方法。理论方面主要参照了概念隐喻投射理论、关联理论和语篇分析理论。研究语料可能来自国内外有关隐喻研究方面的专著、期刊论文、国内外优秀学位论文、专题会议文献、以及文学作品、电影、电视剧、报纸、互联网等,凡能标注文献出处的均做了标注,但部分语料来自名人名家作品、日常生活和个人假想,可能有,也可能没有文献来源。
对隐喻所进行的研究在世界范围内已进入成熟化和大众化阶段,但篇章层次的研究方兴未艾。论文锁定隐喻篇章作为研究焦点符合当前隐喻研究的前沿,期望可以为隐喻的应用研究尽些许绵力,推动隐喻研究的不断深化。
Metaphor is a way to understand and experience one kind of thing in terms of another by mapping from the source domain concept onto the target domain concept for the purposes of cognition, expression and emotional release. It is multi-faceted: It is cognitive in the first place, and metaphors in language and for rhetorical use are derivatives which play their role through the cognitive function of metaphor; its creation is an individual action, and at the same time it is rooted in the social and cultural soil; it provides an effort-saving model to cognize abstract, new and difficult things via concrete, familiar and simple ones, and at the same time it can also work reversely to render simple, familiar and concrete things complicated, alien and abstract.
Metaphor study has been an evergreen tree since the ancient times, and the metaphor-mania since the late twentieth century further pushes it to the very center of interdisciplinary studies. This dissertation will approach metaphor on the textual level based on metaphorical mappings from a multi-dimensional perspective of cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis. To be specific, it looks into metaphorical mappings and their relations with metaphoric texts: the contents, patterns, features of metaphorical mappings and their resultant cognitive forces; the patterns in which metaphors are organized into metaphoric texts; metaphorical mappings and their textual functions; metaphorical text analysis from a multi-dimensional perspective.
Metaphor is of concept which is organized as an abstract schema made up of slots, properties, relations and knowledge that can be mapped during metaphorical mapping from the source domain conceptual schema onto the target domain conceptual schema, thus structuring the target domain, providing options for the instantiation of the target domain conceptual schema, supplying inferential patterns for the reasoning about the target domain, and serving as bases for the evaluation of relevant entities in the target domain. It is especially pointed out that a concept that is frequently used as the source domain of metaphor can be a convenient and available tool for cognizing things effortlessly. Metaphorical mappings are systematic, directional and partial, which observe the Invariance Principle.
Six patterns of metaphorical mappings are proposed altogether:
Pattern 1: mapping of slots
Pattern 2: mapping of slots + properties
Pattern 3: mapping of slots + relations
Pattern 4: mapping of knowledge
Pattern 5: mapping of slots + relations + properties
Pattern 6: mapping of slots + relations + properties + knowledge
Metaphorical mappings are closely linked with the texts they construct, i.e. metaphoric text. A text in this dissertation is regarded as a stretch of language in the written form that makes a relatively independent whole to perform a certain writing function among description, exposition, argumentation and narration in unity of cognition, linguistic form and context. A text can be made up of at least one sentence, several sentences, a paragraph, a whole passage, even a book. Smaller texts can be woven into larger ones, and of course larger ones can be broken down into smaller ones.
A metaphorical text is defined as“a stretch of language governed by the influence of a single metaphor or multiple metaphors, either implicit or explicit, in the written form, that makes a relatively independent whole to carry out a certain writing function among description, exposition, argumentation and narration, with some effects in unity of cognition, linguistic form and context”.
Metaphors can be implicit or explicit in a metaphorical text. Explicit metaphoric texts can be divided into the dispersed type and the coherent type, and in each type, there are the single type and the multiple type. Since in the dispersed type (either single or multiple) metaphoric texts the appearance of metaphors is not regular, the focus of study here is on the coherent type. Then there are the single coherent type and the multiple coherent type. Under the single coherent type, there are the ordinary extensive single type and single type parables. The ordinary extensive single type is regarded as the most prototypical among all types of metaphoric text, though some scholars may have placed it under a different type. Under the coherent multiple type, there are six sub-types: multiple parables, the parallel type, the progressive type, the transitional type, the alternate type and the complementary type. Of course a metaphorical text can be of a combined type. For a clearer view, please refer to Diagram Two about the proposed classification of metaphoric texts on Page 62. Implicit metaphoric text can not have so complicated configurations due to the implicitness of the metaphor in the text, so many of them are of the single extensive type.
Metaphorical mappings can perform the most frequently used textual functions, including description, exposition, argumentation and narration. The classification of the textual functions is relative, which should depend on the dominant purpose a text serves: a description can be an exposition in a different environment; a narration often argues for or against something; an argumentation is quite often built on a narration…. Therefore, it can only be suggested that mapping of properties are normally related to static description, mapping of relations to dynamic description and narration, mapping of knowledge to argumentation, while exposition can be realized by almost any of the above depending on the focus of writing. A text can be realized by a single function, but what is more frequently seen is the combination of functions that brings about a more complicated piece of writing in which there is a dominant function.
Metaphoric texts vary in their degrees of metaphoricity. The more elements are mapped from the source domain onto the target domain, the more complete the mapping is. The more complete mapping patterns subsume the less complete ones, so when a more complete mapping is analyzed, it may need to be broken down into less complete ones so as to analyze their separate constructive forces for different aspects of a text which go together to form the overall metaphorical construction of the text.
This dissertation dedicates much space to the illustration of how the most complete metaphorical mapping constructs the most prototypical writing—narration, because it involves the most complete, most inclusive mapping which frequently involves description, sometimes exposition, and which always sells some idea. The dissertation chooses a very prototypical narration, a short story, Babylon Revisited, written by the U.S. Jazz Age writer, F. S. Fitzgerald, to illustrate quite in detail how metaphorical mappings help construct the setting, characters, plot and theme of the novel. The whole story is constructed completely based on a single extensive macro-metaphor PARIS IS BABYLON, which pre-determines the construction of all the essential elements in the novel. It is discovered that the mappings of slots from the source domain Babylon lay out the setting, characters, the main events and the theme for the novel; the mappings of slots + properties instantiate the setting and the images of the relevant characters; the mappings of slots + relations + properties form a chain of events in order of time, which constitute the plot of the novel; the mappings of knowledge constitute the logic underlying the plot, and at the same time help evaluate the relevant entities concerning the target domain Paris, thus highlighting the theme of the novel.
Analysis of metaphoric texts is unavoidable in a complete study of metaphoric texts. The dissertation proposes a five-dimensional model of metaphorical text analysis which is composed of cohesion, context, coherence, implication inference and critique in the light of discourse analysis theories and the relevance theory. The five dimensions can occur in order, with some dimension(s) repeatedly or simultaneously activated. In the process, the metaphor parameters, including the novelty, complexity and semantic open-endedness of the metaphor(s), and the receiver factors, including his cognitive abilities and his imagination, are involved; at the same time the two principles of relevance serve as underlying forces.
Cohesion is the start point of the process with the purpose to make certain what is said in a text. It can be achieved by lexical, grammatical and metaphorical cohesive means. Context here refers to the cognitive environment composed of co-text and con-text. Coherence refers to the logic behind the text, which can be realized by semantic relevance, thematic relevance, contextual relevance and metaphorical relevance. Metaphorical relevance is guaranteed by metaphorical cohesion, and both of them are based on consistent metaphorical mappings. Implicature inference can be broken down into two steps: assumption(s) construction and assumption(s) confirmation. The last dimension is critique which becomes more and more indispensable. In case of metaphoric texts, critique should involve not only the stuff commonly touched in a non-metaphoric text, but also the influence exerted by the use of metaphor on the text. For a clearer idea, please refer to the Flow Chart of Metaphorical Text Analysis on Page 111.
This model is for metaphoric texts constructed via novel metaphors. As to those based on conventional metaphors, the process may go from the first dimension directly to the fourth dimension.
A poem,“A noiseless patient spider”from the American poet Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, is taken as an example to show how the model works.
As to the research methods, theoretical studies are combined with exemplification and introspection to finish the dissertation. The theories that are mainly referred to are the conceptual metaphorical mapping theory, the relevance theory and discourse analysis theories. The data may come from specialized theoretical books, journal papers, excellent degree theses and dissertations, online papers, conference proceedings, literary works, TV programs, movies and so on. The sources of quotations and examples will be listed in the Bibliography. However, some examples are from very famous literary figures; some are collected from daily life; still others are self-coined, therefore, their sources of quotation may, or may not be marked.
Research on metaphor throughout the whole world has entered the stage of maturity and popularization; however, the study on the textual level only begins. A dedicated study on the production and analysis of metaphoric texts follows the tide of current metaphor study. It is firmly believed that the study that has been done here will contribute, at least slightly, to the furthering of metaphor studies.
隐喻研究自古以来长盛不衰,二十世纪末的“隐喻狂热”更是把它推向跨学科研究的焦点。文章从认知语言学和语篇分析的视角对隐喻投射与隐喻篇章之间的关系进行研究,具体包括隐喻投射的内容、类型、特点及产生的认知力,隐喻篇章的内部组织形式,隐喻投射与不同篇章功能之间的关系以及隐喻篇章多维分析。
隐喻是概念性的,而概念是由实体、特征、关系及知识构成的抽象的意象图式。隐喻投射通过把源域的实体、特征、关系及知识投射到目的域上,从而为认知目的域提供结构、为目的域图式的具体化提供选择、为有关目的域的推理提供推理模式,为评价目的域有关实体提供依据。而且传统充当源域的概念可以方便地,毫不费力地对目的域进行概念化。隐喻投射是系统的、部分的、方向性的,且遵循“对应原则”。文章提出六种投射模式,分别为:
模式1:实体投射
模式2:实体+特征投射
模式3:实体+关系投射
模式4:知识投射
模式5:实体+关系+特征投射
模式6:实体+关系+特征+知识投射隐喻投射与所形成的篇章密切相关。“篇章”是“一段能以认知、语言、语境三位一体的方式完成描写、说明、论证和叙事中任一篇章功能的相对完整的书面语言”。篇章可小至一个句子,大至一篇文章,甚至一本书。小的篇章可组构成大的篇章,大的篇章亦可切分为小的篇章。
“隐喻篇章”是指“一段在单个或多个隐喻影响所及范围之内,能以认知、语言、语境三位一体的方式完成描写、说明、论证和叙事中任一篇章功能的相对完整的书面语言”。隐喻篇章中的隐喻或为隐性,或为显性,因而有隐性隐喻篇章和显性隐喻篇章之分。显性隐喻篇章又可分为离散式隐喻篇章和连贯式隐喻篇章,二者又都涵盖单项式和多项式隐喻篇章。由于离散式(不管是单项式还是多项式)隐喻篇章中隐喻的出现无规律可循,研究重点为连贯式隐喻篇章。连贯式隐喻篇章可分为单项连贯式和多项连贯式:单项连贯式下分普通单项延伸式和单项寓言式,其中单项延伸式在所有隐喻篇章中最具原型性质;多项连贯式下分六种子类型,即多项寓言式、并列式、递进式、转折式、交替式和互补式。隐喻篇章也可能以上述各种类型的混合式出现。详情请参照第71页的“建议的隐喻篇章分类图”。隐性隐喻篇章鉴于其中的隐喻为隐性的,因此很难有复杂的组构变化,多以单项延伸式为主。
隐喻投射可实现描写、说明、论证及叙事等常见篇章功能。篇章功能的区分是相对的,具体取决于它所服务的主要目的:一个描写性篇章在另一环境下完全可能是说明性篇章;论证性篇章可能涉及描写及说明;而叙事篇章往往有论证……文章假定特征投射通常与静态描写有关,关系投射通常与叙事及动态描写有关,知识投射通常与论证有关,而说明则可能由任何一种投射实现,具体因写作焦点而不同。有些篇章涉及单一功能,但更常见的是不同功能组合起来构建更复杂的篇章,而篇章功能是由占主导地位的功能决定的。
篇章的隐喻性有度的变化。从源域投射到目的域的元素越多,隐喻投射就越完整。完整程度高的投射涵盖完整程度低的投射,因此,当分析一个完整程度高的隐喻投射时,可能需要将其分解为完整程度低的投射,以对篇章的不同侧面进行建构,它们合力完成对篇章的总体建构。
论文对隐喻叙事篇章进行了详细探索。论文之所以用较大篇幅探讨叙事篇章的建构主要是因为叙事篇章是所有篇章中最完整的,它往往涉及描写,有时涉及说明,而且总是要张扬一定的观点。文章以美国“爵士乐时代”作家菲茨杰拉德的著名短篇小说《重访巴比伦》为例,对隐喻投射与叙事篇章中的场景、人物、情节及主题建构进行研究,指出实体投射为篇章中的人物、场景、主要事件及主题进行结构布局,实体+特征投射对人物实体和场景实体进行建构,并实现对相关实体的评价;实体+关系+特征投射按时间顺序加以整合便可对事件、情节进行很丰满的建构;知识投射则为情节发展提供因果关系,从而凸显篇章主题。
论文结合话语分析理论和关联理论,建立了由衔接、语境、连贯、隐含意义推理及批评等五个维度构成的隐喻篇章多维分析模型。这五个维度可顺次启动,其中有些维度则可能反复或同时启动。在这个过程中隐喻的新颖性、复杂性及语义开放性等参数,篇章接受者的认知能力及想象力,以及两个关联原则均发挥作用。
衔接是分析的起点,目的是弄清一个隐喻篇章到底“说”了什么。它由词汇衔接、语法衔接和隐喻衔接三种手段实现,是分析推理的基础。语境是指由言内语境和言外语境构成的认知环境。连贯是指篇章内部的逻辑性,由语义关联、主题关联、语境关联和隐喻关联实现。其中隐喻关联的基础是隐喻衔接,二者由系统的隐喻投射来实现。隐含意义推理由隐含意义假设建构和隐含意义假设确认两步构成。最后一维是批评,除了非隐喻篇章常规批评涉及的内容外,还需对隐喻在篇章中的作用进行评价。详情请参照第111页“隐喻篇章分析流程图”。
本模式适用于由新颖隐喻构建的篇章;对于由常规隐喻构建的篇章,篇章分析过程可能直接由第一维的衔接直接跳转至第四维的隐含意义推理。
文章以美国诗人沃尔特·惠特曼《草叶集》中的一首诗“一只不聒噪而又耐心十足的蜘蛛”为例进行详细分析。
论文采用理论研究与实证例析和内省相结合的研究方法。理论方面主要参照了概念隐喻投射理论、关联理论和语篇分析理论。研究语料可能来自国内外有关隐喻研究方面的专著、期刊论文、国内外优秀学位论文、专题会议文献、以及文学作品、电影、电视剧、报纸、互联网等,凡能标注文献出处的均做了标注,但部分语料来自名人名家作品、日常生活和个人假想,可能有,也可能没有文献来源。
对隐喻所进行的研究在世界范围内已进入成熟化和大众化阶段,但篇章层次的研究方兴未艾。论文锁定隐喻篇章作为研究焦点符合当前隐喻研究的前沿,期望可以为隐喻的应用研究尽些许绵力,推动隐喻研究的不断深化。
Metaphor is a way to understand and experience one kind of thing in terms of another by mapping from the source domain concept onto the target domain concept for the purposes of cognition, expression and emotional release. It is multi-faceted: It is cognitive in the first place, and metaphors in language and for rhetorical use are derivatives which play their role through the cognitive function of metaphor; its creation is an individual action, and at the same time it is rooted in the social and cultural soil; it provides an effort-saving model to cognize abstract, new and difficult things via concrete, familiar and simple ones, and at the same time it can also work reversely to render simple, familiar and concrete things complicated, alien and abstract.
Metaphor study has been an evergreen tree since the ancient times, and the metaphor-mania since the late twentieth century further pushes it to the very center of interdisciplinary studies. This dissertation will approach metaphor on the textual level based on metaphorical mappings from a multi-dimensional perspective of cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis. To be specific, it looks into metaphorical mappings and their relations with metaphoric texts: the contents, patterns, features of metaphorical mappings and their resultant cognitive forces; the patterns in which metaphors are organized into metaphoric texts; metaphorical mappings and their textual functions; metaphorical text analysis from a multi-dimensional perspective.
Metaphor is of concept which is organized as an abstract schema made up of slots, properties, relations and knowledge that can be mapped during metaphorical mapping from the source domain conceptual schema onto the target domain conceptual schema, thus structuring the target domain, providing options for the instantiation of the target domain conceptual schema, supplying inferential patterns for the reasoning about the target domain, and serving as bases for the evaluation of relevant entities in the target domain. It is especially pointed out that a concept that is frequently used as the source domain of metaphor can be a convenient and available tool for cognizing things effortlessly. Metaphorical mappings are systematic, directional and partial, which observe the Invariance Principle.
Six patterns of metaphorical mappings are proposed altogether:
Pattern 1: mapping of slots
Pattern 2: mapping of slots + properties
Pattern 3: mapping of slots + relations
Pattern 4: mapping of knowledge
Pattern 5: mapping of slots + relations + properties
Pattern 6: mapping of slots + relations + properties + knowledge
Metaphorical mappings are closely linked with the texts they construct, i.e. metaphoric text. A text in this dissertation is regarded as a stretch of language in the written form that makes a relatively independent whole to perform a certain writing function among description, exposition, argumentation and narration in unity of cognition, linguistic form and context. A text can be made up of at least one sentence, several sentences, a paragraph, a whole passage, even a book. Smaller texts can be woven into larger ones, and of course larger ones can be broken down into smaller ones.
A metaphorical text is defined as“a stretch of language governed by the influence of a single metaphor or multiple metaphors, either implicit or explicit, in the written form, that makes a relatively independent whole to carry out a certain writing function among description, exposition, argumentation and narration, with some effects in unity of cognition, linguistic form and context”.
Metaphors can be implicit or explicit in a metaphorical text. Explicit metaphoric texts can be divided into the dispersed type and the coherent type, and in each type, there are the single type and the multiple type. Since in the dispersed type (either single or multiple) metaphoric texts the appearance of metaphors is not regular, the focus of study here is on the coherent type. Then there are the single coherent type and the multiple coherent type. Under the single coherent type, there are the ordinary extensive single type and single type parables. The ordinary extensive single type is regarded as the most prototypical among all types of metaphoric text, though some scholars may have placed it under a different type. Under the coherent multiple type, there are six sub-types: multiple parables, the parallel type, the progressive type, the transitional type, the alternate type and the complementary type. Of course a metaphorical text can be of a combined type. For a clearer view, please refer to Diagram Two about the proposed classification of metaphoric texts on Page 62. Implicit metaphoric text can not have so complicated configurations due to the implicitness of the metaphor in the text, so many of them are of the single extensive type.
Metaphorical mappings can perform the most frequently used textual functions, including description, exposition, argumentation and narration. The classification of the textual functions is relative, which should depend on the dominant purpose a text serves: a description can be an exposition in a different environment; a narration often argues for or against something; an argumentation is quite often built on a narration…. Therefore, it can only be suggested that mapping of properties are normally related to static description, mapping of relations to dynamic description and narration, mapping of knowledge to argumentation, while exposition can be realized by almost any of the above depending on the focus of writing. A text can be realized by a single function, but what is more frequently seen is the combination of functions that brings about a more complicated piece of writing in which there is a dominant function.
Metaphoric texts vary in their degrees of metaphoricity. The more elements are mapped from the source domain onto the target domain, the more complete the mapping is. The more complete mapping patterns subsume the less complete ones, so when a more complete mapping is analyzed, it may need to be broken down into less complete ones so as to analyze their separate constructive forces for different aspects of a text which go together to form the overall metaphorical construction of the text.
This dissertation dedicates much space to the illustration of how the most complete metaphorical mapping constructs the most prototypical writing—narration, because it involves the most complete, most inclusive mapping which frequently involves description, sometimes exposition, and which always sells some idea. The dissertation chooses a very prototypical narration, a short story, Babylon Revisited, written by the U.S. Jazz Age writer, F. S. Fitzgerald, to illustrate quite in detail how metaphorical mappings help construct the setting, characters, plot and theme of the novel. The whole story is constructed completely based on a single extensive macro-metaphor PARIS IS BABYLON, which pre-determines the construction of all the essential elements in the novel. It is discovered that the mappings of slots from the source domain Babylon lay out the setting, characters, the main events and the theme for the novel; the mappings of slots + properties instantiate the setting and the images of the relevant characters; the mappings of slots + relations + properties form a chain of events in order of time, which constitute the plot of the novel; the mappings of knowledge constitute the logic underlying the plot, and at the same time help evaluate the relevant entities concerning the target domain Paris, thus highlighting the theme of the novel.
Analysis of metaphoric texts is unavoidable in a complete study of metaphoric texts. The dissertation proposes a five-dimensional model of metaphorical text analysis which is composed of cohesion, context, coherence, implication inference and critique in the light of discourse analysis theories and the relevance theory. The five dimensions can occur in order, with some dimension(s) repeatedly or simultaneously activated. In the process, the metaphor parameters, including the novelty, complexity and semantic open-endedness of the metaphor(s), and the receiver factors, including his cognitive abilities and his imagination, are involved; at the same time the two principles of relevance serve as underlying forces.
Cohesion is the start point of the process with the purpose to make certain what is said in a text. It can be achieved by lexical, grammatical and metaphorical cohesive means. Context here refers to the cognitive environment composed of co-text and con-text. Coherence refers to the logic behind the text, which can be realized by semantic relevance, thematic relevance, contextual relevance and metaphorical relevance. Metaphorical relevance is guaranteed by metaphorical cohesion, and both of them are based on consistent metaphorical mappings. Implicature inference can be broken down into two steps: assumption(s) construction and assumption(s) confirmation. The last dimension is critique which becomes more and more indispensable. In case of metaphoric texts, critique should involve not only the stuff commonly touched in a non-metaphoric text, but also the influence exerted by the use of metaphor on the text. For a clearer idea, please refer to the Flow Chart of Metaphorical Text Analysis on Page 111.
This model is for metaphoric texts constructed via novel metaphors. As to those based on conventional metaphors, the process may go from the first dimension directly to the fourth dimension.
A poem,“A noiseless patient spider”from the American poet Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, is taken as an example to show how the model works.
As to the research methods, theoretical studies are combined with exemplification and introspection to finish the dissertation. The theories that are mainly referred to are the conceptual metaphorical mapping theory, the relevance theory and discourse analysis theories. The data may come from specialized theoretical books, journal papers, excellent degree theses and dissertations, online papers, conference proceedings, literary works, TV programs, movies and so on. The sources of quotations and examples will be listed in the Bibliography. However, some examples are from very famous literary figures; some are collected from daily life; still others are self-coined, therefore, their sources of quotation may, or may not be marked.
Research on metaphor throughout the whole world has entered the stage of maturity and popularization; however, the study on the textual level only begins. A dedicated study on the production and analysis of metaphoric texts follows the tide of current metaphor study. It is firmly believed that the study that has been done here will contribute, at least slightly, to the furthering of metaphor studies.
引文
[1] Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1962. 139.
[2] Bacon, F. Of Studies [A]. In Wang Hongyin . A Translation Coursebook of Masterpieces in Chinese and World Literature [C]. Beijing: Higher Education Press. 2007.
[2] Black, M. Models and Metaphors [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1962.
[3] Black, M. More about Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 19-43.
[4] Cameron, L. Identifying and Describing Metaphor in Spoken Discourse Data [A]. In Cameron, L & L. Graham (Eds.). Researching and Applying Metaphor [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. 2001. 105-32.
[5] Cormac, E. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1985. 5, 24.
[6] Cornejo, C. Review Essay: Conceptualizing Metaphors versus Embodying the Language: K?vecses & Zoltán, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation [J]. Culture and Psychology. 2007, (13): 474-88.
[7] Cortazzi, M & Jin Lixian. Discourse Analysis—A Manual for Foreign Language Teaching Seminar [Z].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2009. 8, 9, 12.
[8] Couch, A. Q. The Oxford Book of English Verse: 1250–1900 [C]. [2010-07-16], http://www.bartleby.com/101/780.html. 1919.
[9] Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
[10] Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
[11] Fitzgerald, F. S. Babylon Revisited: And Other Stories [M]. New York: Scribner. 1996.
[12] Gerhart, M & A. M. Russel. Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding [M]. Texas: TCU Press. 1984.
[13] Gibbs, H & R. Wales. Psychological Responses to the Concreteness Characteristics of Literal and Metaphorical Expressions [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1990, 5 (1).
[14] Gibbs, R. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
[15] Gibbs, R. Jr. Categorization and Metaphor Understanding [J]. Psychological Review, 1992, (3).
[16] Giora, R & A. K. Stringaris. Neural Substrates of Metaphor [A]. In Hogan. P (Ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, 489-492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008.
[17] Glucksberg, S & B. Keysar. Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity [J]. Psychological Review, 1990, (1).
[18] Glucksberg, S & B. Keysar, M. McGlone. Metaphor Understanding and Accessing Conceptual Schema: Reply to Gibbs [J]. Psychological Review, 1992, (3).
[19] Goatly, A. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London: Routledge. 1997. 42.
[20] Grady, J. A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance [A]. In Grady, J. and R. Gibbs, Jr. et al (Eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1997.
[21] Grady, J. et al. Blending and Metaphor [A] in Grady, J. and R. Gibbs, Jr. et al (Eds.). Metaphor In Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. 1997. 80-81.
[22] Hasse, U.M. From Name to Metaphor [J]. Research in Phenomenology. 1996 (26): 230-58.
[23] Indurkhya, B. Emergent representations, interaction theory and the cognitive force of metaphor [J]. New Ideas in Psychology. 2006, 24 (2) : 133-62.
[24] Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987.
[25] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1980. ix ,3, 5, 9, 10, 19, 83-86, 155.
[26] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987. xiv.
[27] Lakoff, G & M. Turner. More than Cool Reason [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 1989. 61, 63-64, 112, 184.
[28] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition.) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. 215.
[29] Langacker, R. W. Concept, Image and Symbol [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991.
[30] Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. 147-61.
[31] Mahon, J. Getting Your Sources Right [A], in Cameron, L. & Low, G. (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. 1999. 71, 74, 75.
[32] Moreno, Vega. R. E. Creativity and Convention: the pragmatics of every day figurative speech [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. 2007. 65-66.
[33] Pe?a, S. The Prepositions IN and OUT and the Trajector-Landmark Distinction [J]. RELSA. 1998-99, (13): 261-271.
[34] Perry, C. Help Yourself through the Hard Times. In He Lianzhen (Ed.) New Perspective Graduate Series, Reading, Speaking and Writing [T]. Beijing: Higher Education Press. 2007.
[35] Ortony, A. Metaphor: A multidisciplinary problem. In Ortony, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 3.
[36] Richards, J. C & J. Platt, and H. Platt. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics [D]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000. 138, 139.
[37] Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York and London: Oxford University Press. 1936. 93, 94.
[38] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor [M]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1977. 13.
[39] Searle, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 85, 112.
[40] Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Oxford Publishers Ltd. 1995. 38, 39, 228-29, 231-37, 260, 270, 271.
[41] Turbayne, C. M. Metaphors for the Mind: the Creative Mind and Its Origin [M]. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991.
[42] Walker, A. The Color Purple [M]. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1982.
[43] Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding [A]. In Brown, Gullian, et al (Ed.). Language and Understanding [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994.
[44] Whitman, W. Leaves of Grass [M]. Philadelphia: David McKay.1900.
[45] Yang X, Y & D, Hawkes. Vain Longing [DB/OL]. [2010-07-11]. http://www.for68.com/new/2007/7/wa0683235217111770029964-0.htm.
[46]陈庆勋.艾略特诗歌隐喻研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社.2008.
[47]刁生虎.中国古代隐喻研究述论[J].河南科技大学学报(社会科学版). 2006: 49-52.
[48]冯晓虎.隐喻—思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社.2004.154-60.
[49]桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[50]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2000.160.
[51]洪明.话题的语篇连贯功能[J].浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版),2009,34(1): 106-10.
[52]胡壮麟.语言?认知?隐喻[J].现代外语. 1997, (4): 17, 23,
[53]胡壮麟.功能主义纵横谈[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
[54]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社. 2004. 4, 17, 23.
[55]黄华.试比较概念隐喻理论和概念整合理论[J].外语与外语教学,2001, (6).
[56]季广茂.隐喻理论与文学传统[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社.2002.
[57]姜望琪.语用学━理论及应用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[58]蒋勇,马玉蕾. SB与RT的整合性研究[J].外语学刊, 2003, (1).
[59]李建忠.导致跨文化交际障碍的几种原因[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[60]李庆祥.中日颜色词语及其文化象征意义[J].外语研究,2002, (5).
[61]刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社. 1999.
[62]梁淑新.浅谈英语中的幽默[J]. US-China Foreign Language. 2004, 2 (3): 46-50.
[63]刘东明.图式在翻译过程中的运用[J].外语教学, 2002 , (6).
[64]刘振前.隐喻的语义扩展和语义创造功能[J].聊城师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版). 1999, (6).
[65]刘振前.隐喻的传统理论与理解模式[J].外语与外语教学. 2000, (10).
[66]刘振前.日常英语中隐喻的普遍性及其与认知的关系[J].外语与外语教学.外语教学. 2002 (1).
[67]刘振前.隐喻的文化认知本质与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学, 2002, (2).
[68]罗洁.冒犯上帝的城市.科学大观园.2007,(20):46-47.
[69]苗兴伟.语篇分析的进展与前沿[J].外语学刊,2006, (1): 44-49.
[70]苗兴伟.语篇分析的进展与前沿[A].常晨光,丁建新,周红云.功能语言学与语篇分析新论[C].北京:北京大学出版社.2008. 236-43.
[71]庞继贤,丁展平.应用语言学框架下的隐喻研究[A].束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社:2004. 528.
[72]欧荣.徘徊在过去与未来间的赎罪者[J].世界文学评论.2006, (1): 110-13.
[73]冉红芳.评古代埃及、巴比伦不同的主流生活理想.边疆经济与文化.2006, (6): 146-48.
[74]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999. 70, 91.
[75]束定芳.中国语用学研究论文精选[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[76]王得杏.英语话语分析与跨文化交际[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社. 1998.
[77]王守元,刘振前.隐喻与文化教学[J].外语教学, 2003 (1).
[78]王文斌.隐喻的认知构建于解读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2007.50, 142.
[79]魏继东.博喻的类型及组篇特征[J].国外外语教学,2006, (1): 1-8.
[80]魏继东.篇章隐喻研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2009.14.
[81]吴建国.菲茨杰拉德研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2002.
[82]武铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
[83]解义勇.性泛滥毁了古巴比伦文明[J].中国保健营养.2003,(5):35.
[84]谢之君.隐喻认知功能探索[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.2007. 1-6.
[85]熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999. 5, 113-14, 115.
[86]熊学亮. "认知相关交际相关逻辑相关".摘自冉永平,何自然主编的《语用与认知—关联理论研究》[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.218.
[87]许焕荣,高丙梁,田野.中西思维差异在汉英语言中的体现[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社科版).2006,(4).39-43.
[88]许焕荣.隐喻篇章多维分析探析[J].山东外语教学. 2010, (3): 19-24.
[89]徐庆利,王福祥.关联理论对幽默话语及翻译的解释力[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[90]徐章宏.隐喻话语理解的语用认知研究[M].北京:科学出版社.2007.
[91]杨永林.社会语言学与色彩语码研究[J].现代外语, 2002, (4).
[92]姚喜明.语言的镜像作用[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[93]佚名.上邪.乐府民歌.
[94]张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语. 2002, (4).
[95]张全生.中国隐喻研究十年综述[J].新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 2004, (3): 173-75.
[96]赵毅,花勇.隐喻辩名[J].毕节师范高等专科学校学报. 2000, (1): 39-41.
[97]赵彦春,黄建华.隐喻-认知词典学的眼睛[J].现代外语,2000, (2).
[98]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001. 53, 96.
[99]周榕.隐喻表征性质研究[]J.外语教学与研究, 2002, (4).
[100]朱丽.留住我的华尔兹—菲茨杰拉德作品中以珊尔达为原型的女性形象分析[J].信仰师范学院学报,2007, (6): 116-118.
①Although Wei Jidong did not state that his classification of metaphoric text concerns explicit metaphoric texts, it can be judged that he meant explicit metaphoric texts from his examples.
②The original Chinese is:“枉凝眉”:一个是阆苑仙葩,一个是美玉无瑕。若说没奇缘,今生偏又遇着他;若说有奇缘,如何心事终虚化﹖一个枉自嗟呀,一个空劳牵挂。一个是水中月,一个是镜中花。想眼中能有多少泪珠儿,怎经得秋流到冬尽,春流到夏!
③This is taken from On Fate (Vol. 1) in The Book of History, and the original Chinese is:若济巨川,用汝作舟楫;若岁大旱,用汝作霖雨”.
④The original Chinese is to the pattern of“如梦令”:昨夜雨疏风骤,浓睡不消残酒。试问卷帘人,却道‘海棠依旧。’‘知否?知否?应是绿肥红瘦”.
⑤In this poem,“the person who rolled up the curtain”may have two referents: the husband of the poetess; the maid of the poetess.
⑥Chosen from the part describing a singer Xiao Yu in The Travels of Old Can (《老残游记》).
⑦The original Chinese is:吴将伐齐,越子(勾践)率其众以朝焉,王及列士皆有馈赂。吴人皆喜,唯子胥俱(same as“惧”),曰“是豢吴也夫!”
⑧In this chapter, some words or utterances between the quotation marks are quoted from the novel Babylon Revisited. Since the version of the novel referred to comes from the online data, no page information can be given.
[2] Bacon, F. Of Studies [A]. In Wang Hongyin . A Translation Coursebook of Masterpieces in Chinese and World Literature [C]. Beijing: Higher Education Press. 2007.
[2] Black, M. Models and Metaphors [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1962.
[3] Black, M. More about Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 19-43.
[4] Cameron, L. Identifying and Describing Metaphor in Spoken Discourse Data [A]. In Cameron, L & L. Graham (Eds.). Researching and Applying Metaphor [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. 2001. 105-32.
[5] Cormac, E. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1985. 5, 24.
[6] Cornejo, C. Review Essay: Conceptualizing Metaphors versus Embodying the Language: K?vecses & Zoltán, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation [J]. Culture and Psychology. 2007, (13): 474-88.
[7] Cortazzi, M & Jin Lixian. Discourse Analysis—A Manual for Foreign Language Teaching Seminar [Z].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2009. 8, 9, 12.
[8] Couch, A. Q. The Oxford Book of English Verse: 1250–1900 [C]. [2010-07-16], http://www.bartleby.com/101/780.html. 1919.
[9] Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
[10] Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
[11] Fitzgerald, F. S. Babylon Revisited: And Other Stories [M]. New York: Scribner. 1996.
[12] Gerhart, M & A. M. Russel. Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding [M]. Texas: TCU Press. 1984.
[13] Gibbs, H & R. Wales. Psychological Responses to the Concreteness Characteristics of Literal and Metaphorical Expressions [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1990, 5 (1).
[14] Gibbs, R. Jr. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
[15] Gibbs, R. Jr. Categorization and Metaphor Understanding [J]. Psychological Review, 1992, (3).
[16] Giora, R & A. K. Stringaris. Neural Substrates of Metaphor [A]. In Hogan. P (Ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, 489-492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008.
[17] Glucksberg, S & B. Keysar. Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity [J]. Psychological Review, 1990, (1).
[18] Glucksberg, S & B. Keysar, M. McGlone. Metaphor Understanding and Accessing Conceptual Schema: Reply to Gibbs [J]. Psychological Review, 1992, (3).
[19] Goatly, A. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London: Routledge. 1997. 42.
[20] Grady, J. A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance [A]. In Grady, J. and R. Gibbs, Jr. et al (Eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1997.
[21] Grady, J. et al. Blending and Metaphor [A] in Grady, J. and R. Gibbs, Jr. et al (Eds.). Metaphor In Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. 1997. 80-81.
[22] Hasse, U.M. From Name to Metaphor [J]. Research in Phenomenology. 1996 (26): 230-58.
[23] Indurkhya, B. Emergent representations, interaction theory and the cognitive force of metaphor [J]. New Ideas in Psychology. 2006, 24 (2) : 133-62.
[24] Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987.
[25] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1980. ix ,3, 5, 9, 10, 19, 83-86, 155.
[26] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1987. xiv.
[27] Lakoff, G & M. Turner. More than Cool Reason [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 1989. 61, 63-64, 112, 184.
[28] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition.) [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. 215.
[29] Langacker, R. W. Concept, Image and Symbol [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991.
[30] Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. 147-61.
[31] Mahon, J. Getting Your Sources Right [A], in Cameron, L. & Low, G. (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. 1999. 71, 74, 75.
[32] Moreno, Vega. R. E. Creativity and Convention: the pragmatics of every day figurative speech [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. 2007. 65-66.
[33] Pe?a, S. The Prepositions IN and OUT and the Trajector-Landmark Distinction [J]. RELSA. 1998-99, (13): 261-271.
[34] Perry, C. Help Yourself through the Hard Times. In He Lianzhen (Ed.) New Perspective Graduate Series, Reading, Speaking and Writing [T]. Beijing: Higher Education Press. 2007.
[35] Ortony, A. Metaphor: A multidisciplinary problem. In Ortony, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 3.
[36] Richards, J. C & J. Platt, and H. Platt. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics [D]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000. 138, 139.
[37] Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M]. New York and London: Oxford University Press. 1936. 93, 94.
[38] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor [M]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1977. 13.
[39] Searle, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. 85, 112.
[40] Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Oxford Publishers Ltd. 1995. 38, 39, 228-29, 231-37, 260, 270, 271.
[41] Turbayne, C. M. Metaphors for the Mind: the Creative Mind and Its Origin [M]. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991.
[42] Walker, A. The Color Purple [M]. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1982.
[43] Wilson, D. Relevance and Understanding [A]. In Brown, Gullian, et al (Ed.). Language and Understanding [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994.
[44] Whitman, W. Leaves of Grass [M]. Philadelphia: David McKay.1900.
[45] Yang X, Y & D, Hawkes. Vain Longing [DB/OL]. [2010-07-11]. http://www.for68.com/new/2007/7/wa0683235217111770029964-0.htm.
[46]陈庆勋.艾略特诗歌隐喻研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社.2008.
[47]刁生虎.中国古代隐喻研究述论[J].河南科技大学学报(社会科学版). 2006: 49-52.
[48]冯晓虎.隐喻—思维的基础,篇章的框架[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社.2004.154-60.
[49]桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[50]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2000.160.
[51]洪明.话题的语篇连贯功能[J].浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版),2009,34(1): 106-10.
[52]胡壮麟.语言?认知?隐喻[J].现代外语. 1997, (4): 17, 23,
[53]胡壮麟.功能主义纵横谈[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
[54]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社. 2004. 4, 17, 23.
[55]黄华.试比较概念隐喻理论和概念整合理论[J].外语与外语教学,2001, (6).
[56]季广茂.隐喻理论与文学传统[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社.2002.
[57]姜望琪.语用学━理论及应用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[58]蒋勇,马玉蕾. SB与RT的整合性研究[J].外语学刊, 2003, (1).
[59]李建忠.导致跨文化交际障碍的几种原因[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[60]李庆祥.中日颜色词语及其文化象征意义[J].外语研究,2002, (5).
[61]刘辰诞.教学篇章语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社. 1999.
[62]梁淑新.浅谈英语中的幽默[J]. US-China Foreign Language. 2004, 2 (3): 46-50.
[63]刘东明.图式在翻译过程中的运用[J].外语教学, 2002 , (6).
[64]刘振前.隐喻的语义扩展和语义创造功能[J].聊城师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版). 1999, (6).
[65]刘振前.隐喻的传统理论与理解模式[J].外语与外语教学. 2000, (10).
[66]刘振前.日常英语中隐喻的普遍性及其与认知的关系[J].外语与外语教学.外语教学. 2002 (1).
[67]刘振前.隐喻的文化认知本质与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学, 2002, (2).
[68]罗洁.冒犯上帝的城市.科学大观园.2007,(20):46-47.
[69]苗兴伟.语篇分析的进展与前沿[J].外语学刊,2006, (1): 44-49.
[70]苗兴伟.语篇分析的进展与前沿[A].常晨光,丁建新,周红云.功能语言学与语篇分析新论[C].北京:北京大学出版社.2008. 236-43.
[71]庞继贤,丁展平.应用语言学框架下的隐喻研究[A].束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社:2004. 528.
[72]欧荣.徘徊在过去与未来间的赎罪者[J].世界文学评论.2006, (1): 110-13.
[73]冉红芳.评古代埃及、巴比伦不同的主流生活理想.边疆经济与文化.2006, (6): 146-48.
[74]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999. 70, 91.
[75]束定芳.中国语用学研究论文精选[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[76]王得杏.英语话语分析与跨文化交际[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社. 1998.
[77]王守元,刘振前.隐喻与文化教学[J].外语教学, 2003 (1).
[78]王文斌.隐喻的认知构建于解读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2007.50, 142.
[79]魏继东.博喻的类型及组篇特征[J].国外外语教学,2006, (1): 1-8.
[80]魏继东.篇章隐喻研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2009.14.
[81]吴建国.菲茨杰拉德研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.2002.
[82]武铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
[83]解义勇.性泛滥毁了古巴比伦文明[J].中国保健营养.2003,(5):35.
[84]谢之君.隐喻认知功能探索[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.2007. 1-6.
[85]熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999. 5, 113-14, 115.
[86]熊学亮. "认知相关交际相关逻辑相关".摘自冉永平,何自然主编的《语用与认知—关联理论研究》[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.218.
[87]许焕荣,高丙梁,田野.中西思维差异在汉英语言中的体现[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社科版).2006,(4).39-43.
[88]许焕荣.隐喻篇章多维分析探析[J].山东外语教学. 2010, (3): 19-24.
[89]徐庆利,王福祥.关联理论对幽默话语及翻译的解释力[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[90]徐章宏.隐喻话语理解的语用认知研究[M].北京:科学出版社.2007.
[91]杨永林.社会语言学与色彩语码研究[J].现代外语, 2002, (4).
[92]姚喜明.语言的镜像作用[J].外语教学, 2002, (5).
[93]佚名.上邪.乐府民歌.
[94]张辉,周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语. 2002, (4).
[95]张全生.中国隐喻研究十年综述[J].新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 2004, (3): 173-75.
[96]赵毅,花勇.隐喻辩名[J].毕节师范高等专科学校学报. 2000, (1): 39-41.
[97]赵彦春,黄建华.隐喻-认知词典学的眼睛[J].现代外语,2000, (2).
[98]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001. 53, 96.
[99]周榕.隐喻表征性质研究[]J.外语教学与研究, 2002, (4).
[100]朱丽.留住我的华尔兹—菲茨杰拉德作品中以珊尔达为原型的女性形象分析[J].信仰师范学院学报,2007, (6): 116-118.
①Although Wei Jidong did not state that his classification of metaphoric text concerns explicit metaphoric texts, it can be judged that he meant explicit metaphoric texts from his examples.
②The original Chinese is:“枉凝眉”:一个是阆苑仙葩,一个是美玉无瑕。若说没奇缘,今生偏又遇着他;若说有奇缘,如何心事终虚化﹖一个枉自嗟呀,一个空劳牵挂。一个是水中月,一个是镜中花。想眼中能有多少泪珠儿,怎经得秋流到冬尽,春流到夏!
③This is taken from On Fate (Vol. 1) in The Book of History, and the original Chinese is:若济巨川,用汝作舟楫;若岁大旱,用汝作霖雨”.
④The original Chinese is to the pattern of“如梦令”:昨夜雨疏风骤,浓睡不消残酒。试问卷帘人,却道‘海棠依旧。’‘知否?知否?应是绿肥红瘦”.
⑤In this poem,“the person who rolled up the curtain”may have two referents: the husband of the poetess; the maid of the poetess.
⑥Chosen from the part describing a singer Xiao Yu in The Travels of Old Can (《老残游记》).
⑦The original Chinese is:吴将伐齐,越子(勾践)率其众以朝焉,王及列士皆有馈赂。吴人皆喜,唯子胥俱(same as“惧”),曰“是豢吴也夫!”
⑧In this chapter, some words or utterances between the quotation marks are quoted from the novel Babylon Revisited. Since the version of the novel referred to comes from the online data, no page information can be given.