基于英汉比较的语法隐喻再分类
|
摘要
判断语法隐喻式和一致式的标准有很多,其中之一是句子的表述意义相同时,不同语言形式因为其语义表达和人们认知原型的距离不同而体现出不同的隐喻程度,而这种距离又因语言使用者的母语迁移不同而不同。因此,在考虑语法隐喻的隐喻度时,必须考虑不同语言间的差异。本文通过实证研究,首先证实了母语为汉语的说英语者对语法隐喻的理解是基于汉语的语义原型;其次根据实验结果将语法隐喻的传统分类模式结合英汉思维对比进行了重组,提出了适用于汉语母语者的语法隐喻分类模式。
Criteria abound when it comes to the differentiation of grammatical metaphors and their congruent counterparts.One of such criteria is the distance between the impression a syntactic expression makes on the speaker and the cognitive prototype of the corresponding semantics,which is inevitably affected by the speaker's mother tongue.Therefore,it is essential to take the inter-language differences into consideration.Based on such an assumption and with two questionnaires,the paper verifies that the construe of grammatical metaphors by Chinese English-speakers is based on the semantic prototype shaped by their native language.Then it recategorizes the English grammatical metaphors in the light of the thinking patterns of the two languages as well as the results of the questionnaires in order to make it suitable for Chinese English learners.
Criteria abound when it comes to the differentiation of grammatical metaphors and their congruent counterparts.One of such criteria is the distance between the impression a syntactic expression makes on the speaker and the cognitive prototype of the corresponding semantics,which is inevitably affected by the speaker's mother tongue.Therefore,it is essential to take the inter-language differences into consideration.Based on such an assumption and with two questionnaires,the paper verifies that the construe of grammatical metaphors by Chinese English-speakers is based on the semantic prototype shaped by their native language.Then it recategorizes the English grammatical metaphors in the light of the thinking patterns of the two languages as well as the results of the questionnaires in order to make it suitable for Chinese English learners.
引文
[1]Gutt,E.A.Translation and Relevance-Cognition and Context[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press,2004.
[2]Halliday,M.A.K.Grammatical metaphor in English and Chinese[A].In Webster,J.(ed.).Studies in Chinese Language[C].London/New York:Continuum,1984/2005:334-336.
[3]Halliday,M.A.K.An Introduction to Functional Grammar(2nded.)[M].London:Edward Arnold,1994.
[4]Halliday,M.A.K.Things and relations:Regrammatizing experience as technical knowledge[A].In Martin,J.R.&R.Veel.(eds.).Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science[C].London:Edward Arnold,1996:44,185-235.
[5]Halliday,M.A.K.Introduction:How big is a language?On the power of language[A].In Webster,J.(ed.).The Language of Science:Collected Works of M.A.K.Halliday,Vol.15[C].London:Continuum,2004.
[6]Halliday,M.A.K.&C.Matthiessen.Construing Experience through Meaning:A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M].London:Cassell,1999.
[7]Kilpert,D.Getting the full picture:A reflection on the work of M.A.K.Halliday[J].Language Science,2003(2):159-209.
[8]Martin,J.R.English Text[M].Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1992.
[9]Martin,J.R.&P.R.R.White.The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
[10]Nisbett,R.E.The Geography of Thought[M].New York and London:Free Press,2004.
[11]Qian,D.D.Assessing the depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension[J].Canadian Modern Language Review,1999(2):282-308.
[12]Rigney,D.The Metaphorical Society:An Invitation to Social Theory[M].Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield Publishers,2001:55.
[13]Ravelli,L.J.Renewal of connection:Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of Grammatical metaphor[A].In Vandenbergen,S.Taverniers,M.&L.Ravelli.(eds.).Grammatical Metaphor:Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics[C].Amsterdam:Benjamins,2003:37-64.
[14]Sperber,D.&D.Wilson.Relevance:Communication and Cognition[M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1995.
[15]Steiner,E.Ideational grammatical metaphor:Exploring some implications for the overall model[J].Languages in Contrast,2003(1):137-164.
[16]Thompson,G.Introducing Functional Grammar[M].London:Arnold,1996.
[17]Taylor,J.Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M].Oxford:Claradon Press,1989.
[18]陈新仁.说话人用意的认知加工机制:基于误解分析的论据[J].外语教学,2016(4):11-15.
[19]丛迎旭.概念语法隐喻研究的限制与扩展[J].外国语,2011(5):46-53.
[20]丛迎旭.系统功能语言学语法隐喻理论的贡献与问题[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2014(5):73-81.
[21]丛迎旭,王红阳.基于语义变化的概念语法隐喻模式与类型[J].现代外语,2013(1):33-39.
[22]范文芳.试论语法隐喻的综合模式[J].外语教学,2007(4):12-15.
[23]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[24]姜望琪.语法隐喻理论的来龙去脉及实质[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2014(5):63-72.
[25]金娜娜,陈自力.语法隐喻的认知效果[J].外语教学与研究,2004(1):25-30.
[26]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2010.
[27]林语堂.林语堂选集[M].福州:海峡文艺出版社,1988.
[28]林正军,杨忠.语法隐喻的语义关系与转级向度研究[J].外语教学与研究,2010(6):403-410.
[29]曾蕾.从语法隐喻视角看学术语篇中的“投射”[J].外语学刊,2007(3):46-49.
[30]张德禄,赵静.论语法概念隐喻中一致式与隐喻式的形似性原则[J].外国语,2008(6):26-32.
[31]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
[32]赵元任.中国话的文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1968/2011:35.
[33]朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
(1)我们已经注意到用印欧语言的“动词”、“分词”等概念来对汉语削足适履是不恰当的,这里我们只是为了便于论证,暂且借用这些术语来说明汉语的语法隐喻和英语不同。
(2)系统功能语言学和认知语言学都认为语言形式的改变必然带来语言意义改变,故我们这里所说的“认知效果相差无几”主要是就一致式和隐喻式的命题意义说的,亦即在小局层面上二者具有“语义同一性”。(参见丛迎旭2014:76。)
(3)参见沈家煊.“名动词”的反思:问题和对策[C]//高名凯先生学术思想研讨会——纪念高名凯先生诞辰100周年论文集.来自中国知网电子文档:http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Area/CPFDCONFArticle ListBDYY201103001-1.htm
(4)按照认知语言学的思想,“原型”指的是“某范畴概念核心的图式表征”(Taylor 1989:55),具体表现为在相似性基础上组合起来的单个的实体。
(5)Halliday曾把许多类型的隐喻式和一致式之间的转化缺乏语言事实的证据这一现象解释为“缺少直接证据(direct evidence)”,我们认为把一致式理解为各民族、各语言的思维模式原型可以进一步解释为什么“缺少直接证据”,或者说不必需直接证据。
[2]Halliday,M.A.K.Grammatical metaphor in English and Chinese[A].In Webster,J.(ed.).Studies in Chinese Language[C].London/New York:Continuum,1984/2005:334-336.
[3]Halliday,M.A.K.An Introduction to Functional Grammar(2nded.)[M].London:Edward Arnold,1994.
[4]Halliday,M.A.K.Things and relations:Regrammatizing experience as technical knowledge[A].In Martin,J.R.&R.Veel.(eds.).Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science[C].London:Edward Arnold,1996:44,185-235.
[5]Halliday,M.A.K.Introduction:How big is a language?On the power of language[A].In Webster,J.(ed.).The Language of Science:Collected Works of M.A.K.Halliday,Vol.15[C].London:Continuum,2004.
[6]Halliday,M.A.K.&C.Matthiessen.Construing Experience through Meaning:A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M].London:Cassell,1999.
[7]Kilpert,D.Getting the full picture:A reflection on the work of M.A.K.Halliday[J].Language Science,2003(2):159-209.
[8]Martin,J.R.English Text[M].Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1992.
[9]Martin,J.R.&P.R.R.White.The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
[10]Nisbett,R.E.The Geography of Thought[M].New York and London:Free Press,2004.
[11]Qian,D.D.Assessing the depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension[J].Canadian Modern Language Review,1999(2):282-308.
[12]Rigney,D.The Metaphorical Society:An Invitation to Social Theory[M].Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield Publishers,2001:55.
[13]Ravelli,L.J.Renewal of connection:Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of Grammatical metaphor[A].In Vandenbergen,S.Taverniers,M.&L.Ravelli.(eds.).Grammatical Metaphor:Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics[C].Amsterdam:Benjamins,2003:37-64.
[14]Sperber,D.&D.Wilson.Relevance:Communication and Cognition[M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1995.
[15]Steiner,E.Ideational grammatical metaphor:Exploring some implications for the overall model[J].Languages in Contrast,2003(1):137-164.
[16]Thompson,G.Introducing Functional Grammar[M].London:Arnold,1996.
[17]Taylor,J.Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M].Oxford:Claradon Press,1989.
[18]陈新仁.说话人用意的认知加工机制:基于误解分析的论据[J].外语教学,2016(4):11-15.
[19]丛迎旭.概念语法隐喻研究的限制与扩展[J].外国语,2011(5):46-53.
[20]丛迎旭.系统功能语言学语法隐喻理论的贡献与问题[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2014(5):73-81.
[21]丛迎旭,王红阳.基于语义变化的概念语法隐喻模式与类型[J].现代外语,2013(1):33-39.
[22]范文芳.试论语法隐喻的综合模式[J].外语教学,2007(4):12-15.
[23]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[24]姜望琪.语法隐喻理论的来龙去脉及实质[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2014(5):63-72.
[25]金娜娜,陈自力.语法隐喻的认知效果[J].外语教学与研究,2004(1):25-30.
[26]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2010.
[27]林语堂.林语堂选集[M].福州:海峡文艺出版社,1988.
[28]林正军,杨忠.语法隐喻的语义关系与转级向度研究[J].外语教学与研究,2010(6):403-410.
[29]曾蕾.从语法隐喻视角看学术语篇中的“投射”[J].外语学刊,2007(3):46-49.
[30]张德禄,赵静.论语法概念隐喻中一致式与隐喻式的形似性原则[J].外国语,2008(6):26-32.
[31]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
[32]赵元任.中国话的文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1968/2011:35.
[33]朱永生,严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
(1)我们已经注意到用印欧语言的“动词”、“分词”等概念来对汉语削足适履是不恰当的,这里我们只是为了便于论证,暂且借用这些术语来说明汉语的语法隐喻和英语不同。
(2)系统功能语言学和认知语言学都认为语言形式的改变必然带来语言意义改变,故我们这里所说的“认知效果相差无几”主要是就一致式和隐喻式的命题意义说的,亦即在小局层面上二者具有“语义同一性”。(参见丛迎旭2014:76。)
(3)参见沈家煊.“名动词”的反思:问题和对策[C]//高名凯先生学术思想研讨会——纪念高名凯先生诞辰100周年论文集.来自中国知网电子文档:http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Area/CPFDCONFArticle ListBDYY201103001-1.htm
(4)按照认知语言学的思想,“原型”指的是“某范畴概念核心的图式表征”(Taylor 1989:55),具体表现为在相似性基础上组合起来的单个的实体。
(5)Halliday曾把许多类型的隐喻式和一致式之间的转化缺乏语言事实的证据这一现象解释为“缺少直接证据(direct evidence)”,我们认为把一致式理解为各民族、各语言的思维模式原型可以进一步解释为什么“缺少直接证据”,或者说不必需直接证据。