从系统性看隐喻理论的解释力:概念认知还是语用认知?
|
摘要
概念隐喻理论(CMT)掀起了隐喻研究的认知革命,系统性是CMT在判别语料时的关键依据。研究发现,以系统性为标准,可以发现CMT的解释力存在局限性,并不能解释所有的"我们赖以生存的隐喻",即CMT无法解释概念系统以外的隐喻。研究同时表明,作为认知语用学基础的关联理论(RT)能够解释更广泛的隐喻类型:首先,它能同时解释概念系统内和系统外的隐喻;其次,就系统内隐喻而言,RT不仅能够解释隐喻的系统性及其形成过程,并且在解释的细致性方面更具优势;不仅如此,它还能够揭示隐喻交际的内部认知过程以及外部使用动因。因此RT是一种更全面和更细致的隐喻解释模式。
Conceptual Metaphor Theory(CMT) has triggered a cognitive revolution for metaphor research, with the notion of "systematicity" as its cornerstone for identifying linguistic metaphors. Based on systematicity, it can be revealed that CMT is far from being capable of explaining all "the metaphors we live by", i.e. it can not cover the linguistic metaphors which are beyond the conceptual system. It is also illustrated that Relevance Theory, the theoretical foundation of cognitive pragmatics, has the potential to interpret a wider range of metaphors: It can not only give a more in-depth explanation of metaphors both inside and outside conceptual system, but also reveal more about the internal cognitive mechanism, the external communicative motivation, as well as the conventionalization of our metaphorical conceptual system. Therefore, Relevance Theory is a more comprehensive and rigorous interpretation mode for metaphors.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory(CMT) has triggered a cognitive revolution for metaphor research, with the notion of "systematicity" as its cornerstone for identifying linguistic metaphors. Based on systematicity, it can be revealed that CMT is far from being capable of explaining all "the metaphors we live by", i.e. it can not cover the linguistic metaphors which are beyond the conceptual system. It is also illustrated that Relevance Theory, the theoretical foundation of cognitive pragmatics, has the potential to interpret a wider range of metaphors: It can not only give a more in-depth explanation of metaphors both inside and outside conceptual system, but also reveal more about the internal cognitive mechanism, the external communicative motivation, as well as the conventionalization of our metaphorical conceptual system. Therefore, Relevance Theory is a more comprehensive and rigorous interpretation mode for metaphors.
引文
[1]LAKOFF G,JOHNSON M.Metaphors We Live by [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980/2003.
[2]RICHARDS I.The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M].Oxford:Oxford University,1936:98.
[3]STEEN G,DORST A,HERRMANN B,et al.A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification [M].Amsterdam:Benjamins,2010.
[4]MCGLONE M.What is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor?[J].Language and Communication,2007(2):109-126.
[5]GENTNER D,BOWDLE B F.Convention,Form,and Figurative Language Processing [J].Metaphor and Symbol,2001 (3 & 4):223-247.
[6]莫嘉琳.向死而生的隐喻:隐喻性终结后的叙事[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2016.
[7]赵彦春.隐喻形态研究[M].北京:外文出版社,2011.
[8]GRADY J E.Theories are buildings revisited [M]//In Hanks and Giora (eds.)Metaphor and Figurative Language,Vol.I.London:Routledge,2002:233.
[9]WILSON D.Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics [J].Intercultural Pragmatics,2011 (2):177-196.
[10]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[11]K?VECSES Z.Where Metaphors Come From:Reconsidering Context in Metaphor [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2015:6.
[12]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:76.
[13]孙毅.认知隐喻学多维跨域研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:71.
[14]谢之君.隐喻认知功能探索[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[15]张征,杨成虎.概念隐喻恒定性原理中的“彰”与“障”问题[J].外语学刊,2013 (4):44-48.
[16]范振强.论隐喻理论构建的参照维度及连续统——以“A is B”型隐喻为例[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版),2018 (3):78-89.
[17] K?VECSES Z.Conceptual Metaphor Theory:Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals [J].Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2008(6):171.
[18] Lakoff G.Image Metaphors [J].Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,1987 (3):219-221.
[19] Gleason D W.The Visual Experience of Image Metaphor:Cognitive Insights into Imagist Figures[J].Poetics Today,2009 (3):423-470.
[20] CRISP P.Imagism?s Metaphors:A Test Case [J].Language and Literature,1996 (2):79.
[21] MAALEJ Z.Metaphor Making and Processing[J].Journal of Literary Semantics,2001 (3):108.
[22]GRICE H P.Logic and Conversation [M]//In P.Cole and J.Morgan (ed.) Speech Acts.New York:Academic Press,1975.
[23]SEARLE J R.‘Metaphor’ [M]//In A.Ortony (ed.),Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.
[24] GIBBS R W.The Poetics of Mind [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1994.
[25] SPERBER D,WILSON D.Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M].Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1995.
[26]GIBBS R W.Why do Some People Dislike Conceptual Metaphor Theory?[J].Journal of Cognitive Semiotics,2009 (5):18.
[27]DUNN J.Three Types of Metaphoric Utterances that can Synthesize Theories of Metaphor [J].Metaphor and Symbol ,2015 (1):1-23.
[28] Loewenberg I.Truth and Consequences of Metaphors[J].Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973 (6):30-46.
[29]Tendahl M,Gibbs R W.Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor:Cognitive linguistics and Relevance Theory [J].Journal of Pragmatics,2008 (40):1853.
[30]EVANS V.The Structure of Time:Language,Meaning and Temporal Cognition [M].Amsterdam:John Benjams,2003.
[31]GIORA R.On Our Mind:Salience,Context and Figurative Language [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[32]CLARK B.Relevance Theory [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2013:271.
[33]SPERBER D,WILSON D.Loose Talk [M]//In Hanks and Giora (eds.) Metaphor and Figurative Language,Vol.I.London:Routledge,2012:335.
[34]范振强.关联理论视域下隐喻的感受意——兼论心智哲学与关联理论的互补性[J].天津外国语大学学报,2015 (5):8-13.
[35]CARSTON R.Metaphor:Ad Hoc Concepts,Literal Meaning and Mental Images [J].Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series,2010 (1):314.
[36] REFAIE E.Reconsidering “Image Metaphor” in the Light of Perceptual Simulation Theory [J].Metaphor and Symbol,2015(1):63.
[37]高新民.感受性质——新二元论的一个堡垒[J].甘肃社会科学,2009 (5):34-39.
[38]徐盛桓,陈香兰.感受质与感受意[J].现代外语,2010 (4):331-338 .
[39]SPERBER D,WILSON D.Beyond Speaker?s Meaning [J].Croatian Journal of Philosophy,2015 (44):117-149.
[40]K?VECSES K.Recent Developments in Metaphor Theory:Are the New Views Rival Ones?[J].Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2011:11-25.
[41]王姝彦.“可表达”与“可交流”——解读“感受质”问题的一种可能路径[J].哲学研究,2010 (10):98.
[42]高新民,沈学君.现代西方心灵哲学[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2010:589.
[43]GIBBS R,Tendahl M,Okonski L.Inferring Pragmatic Messages from Metaphor [J].Lodz Papers in Pragmatics,2011 (1):5.
[44]GIBBS R W.What Do Idioms Really Mean?[J].Journal of Memory and Language (31):485-506.
[45]TENDAHL M.A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor:Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics[M].Basngstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2009:164.
[46]范振强.关联理论视域下的隐喻研究:问题与展望[J].外语学刊,2019(2):15-20.
(1)Lakoff & Johnson在文中强调他们的概念隐喻理论的关键因素是“我们系统地用一个概念域的推理模式来对其他概念域进行推理”,这种系统性的跨域推理已经得到实证研究支持,“我们把这种现象称为概念隐喻,并把这些系统性的对应称为隐喻映射” 。
(1)有的隐喻(如明喻)以传递感受意为主,话语含意为辅,有的(如规约化隐喻)则相反。
(2)根据广为接受的认知隐喻定义(借助一个事物理解另一个事物的认知过程),可以认为“修辞学上的所有比喻性辞格都是隐喻性的。重要的不是在于一句话使用了一个什么修辞格,而在于修辞格反映了语言使用中的隐喻认知本质”,见文献[14]34。例如,文献[40]用一条明喻(This surgeon is butcher.) 检验了CMT、RT、概念整合、范畴化等6种不同的隐喻理论。本文按照多数认知语言学的范式,把明喻视为隐喻的子范畴。
[2]RICHARDS I.The Philosophy of Rhetoric [M].Oxford:Oxford University,1936:98.
[3]STEEN G,DORST A,HERRMANN B,et al.A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification [M].Amsterdam:Benjamins,2010.
[4]MCGLONE M.What is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor?[J].Language and Communication,2007(2):109-126.
[5]GENTNER D,BOWDLE B F.Convention,Form,and Figurative Language Processing [J].Metaphor and Symbol,2001 (3 & 4):223-247.
[6]莫嘉琳.向死而生的隐喻:隐喻性终结后的叙事[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2016.
[7]赵彦春.隐喻形态研究[M].北京:外文出版社,2011.
[8]GRADY J E.Theories are buildings revisited [M]//In Hanks and Giora (eds.)Metaphor and Figurative Language,Vol.I.London:Routledge,2002:233.
[9]WILSON D.Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics [J].Intercultural Pragmatics,2011 (2):177-196.
[10]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[11]K?VECSES Z.Where Metaphors Come From:Reconsidering Context in Metaphor [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2015:6.
[12]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:76.
[13]孙毅.认知隐喻学多维跨域研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:71.
[14]谢之君.隐喻认知功能探索[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[15]张征,杨成虎.概念隐喻恒定性原理中的“彰”与“障”问题[J].外语学刊,2013 (4):44-48.
[16]范振强.论隐喻理论构建的参照维度及连续统——以“A is B”型隐喻为例[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版),2018 (3):78-89.
[17] K?VECSES Z.Conceptual Metaphor Theory:Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals [J].Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2008(6):171.
[18] Lakoff G.Image Metaphors [J].Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,1987 (3):219-221.
[19] Gleason D W.The Visual Experience of Image Metaphor:Cognitive Insights into Imagist Figures[J].Poetics Today,2009 (3):423-470.
[20] CRISP P.Imagism?s Metaphors:A Test Case [J].Language and Literature,1996 (2):79.
[21] MAALEJ Z.Metaphor Making and Processing[J].Journal of Literary Semantics,2001 (3):108.
[22]GRICE H P.Logic and Conversation [M]//In P.Cole and J.Morgan (ed.) Speech Acts.New York:Academic Press,1975.
[23]SEARLE J R.‘Metaphor’ [M]//In A.Ortony (ed.),Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.
[24] GIBBS R W.The Poetics of Mind [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1994.
[25] SPERBER D,WILSON D.Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M].Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1995.
[26]GIBBS R W.Why do Some People Dislike Conceptual Metaphor Theory?[J].Journal of Cognitive Semiotics,2009 (5):18.
[27]DUNN J.Three Types of Metaphoric Utterances that can Synthesize Theories of Metaphor [J].Metaphor and Symbol ,2015 (1):1-23.
[28] Loewenberg I.Truth and Consequences of Metaphors[J].Philosophy and Rhetoric,1973 (6):30-46.
[29]Tendahl M,Gibbs R W.Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor:Cognitive linguistics and Relevance Theory [J].Journal of Pragmatics,2008 (40):1853.
[30]EVANS V.The Structure of Time:Language,Meaning and Temporal Cognition [M].Amsterdam:John Benjams,2003.
[31]GIORA R.On Our Mind:Salience,Context and Figurative Language [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[32]CLARK B.Relevance Theory [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2013:271.
[33]SPERBER D,WILSON D.Loose Talk [M]//In Hanks and Giora (eds.) Metaphor and Figurative Language,Vol.I.London:Routledge,2012:335.
[34]范振强.关联理论视域下隐喻的感受意——兼论心智哲学与关联理论的互补性[J].天津外国语大学学报,2015 (5):8-13.
[35]CARSTON R.Metaphor:Ad Hoc Concepts,Literal Meaning and Mental Images [J].Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series,2010 (1):314.
[36] REFAIE E.Reconsidering “Image Metaphor” in the Light of Perceptual Simulation Theory [J].Metaphor and Symbol,2015(1):63.
[37]高新民.感受性质——新二元论的一个堡垒[J].甘肃社会科学,2009 (5):34-39.
[38]徐盛桓,陈香兰.感受质与感受意[J].现代外语,2010 (4):331-338 .
[39]SPERBER D,WILSON D.Beyond Speaker?s Meaning [J].Croatian Journal of Philosophy,2015 (44):117-149.
[40]K?VECSES K.Recent Developments in Metaphor Theory:Are the New Views Rival Ones?[J].Review of Cognitive Linguistics,2011:11-25.
[41]王姝彦.“可表达”与“可交流”——解读“感受质”问题的一种可能路径[J].哲学研究,2010 (10):98.
[42]高新民,沈学君.现代西方心灵哲学[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2010:589.
[43]GIBBS R,Tendahl M,Okonski L.Inferring Pragmatic Messages from Metaphor [J].Lodz Papers in Pragmatics,2011 (1):5.
[44]GIBBS R W.What Do Idioms Really Mean?[J].Journal of Memory and Language (31):485-506.
[45]TENDAHL M.A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor:Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics[M].Basngstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2009:164.
[46]范振强.关联理论视域下的隐喻研究:问题与展望[J].外语学刊,2019(2):15-20.
(1)Lakoff & Johnson在文中强调他们的概念隐喻理论的关键因素是“我们系统地用一个概念域的推理模式来对其他概念域进行推理”,这种系统性的跨域推理已经得到实证研究支持,“我们把这种现象称为概念隐喻,并把这些系统性的对应称为隐喻映射” 。
(1)有的隐喻(如明喻)以传递感受意为主,话语含意为辅,有的(如规约化隐喻)则相反。
(2)根据广为接受的认知隐喻定义(借助一个事物理解另一个事物的认知过程),可以认为“修辞学上的所有比喻性辞格都是隐喻性的。重要的不是在于一句话使用了一个什么修辞格,而在于修辞格反映了语言使用中的隐喻认知本质”,见文献[14]34。例如,文献[40]用一条明喻(This surgeon is butcher.) 检验了CMT、RT、概念整合、范畴化等6种不同的隐喻理论。本文按照多数认知语言学的范式,把明喻视为隐喻的子范畴。