摘要
阅读是获取信息的重要方式,阅读教学是大学英语教学的一个重要方面,然而很多大学生认为英语阅读枯燥无味。一些认知语言学研究者认为,培养学生的转喻能力能够提高其英语阅读兴趣及动机,并进一步有效地提高学生的英语阅读能力,本文用实验研究的方法验证专家学者们的这一观点。尝试把概念转喻理论应用于大学英语阅读教学中,目的在于在认知语言学理论的指导下,在改进传统教学方法的基础上,探索大学英语阅读教学的新思路,提高阅读教学的效率。本研究是以认知语言学框架下的概念转喻理论为基础的一次准实验研究,采用了定量与定性相结合的分析方法。
经过二十周的实验,本文有如下发现:(一)问卷调查结果显示,通过在大学英语阅读课中介绍概念转喻,学生对人类的认知方式有了一定了解,英语学习的内在兴趣和动机大大提高。(二)后测结果显示,实验班学生的转喻能力较之控制班有了大幅度提高,同时其英语阅读能力也得到了一定程度的提高。(三)实验结果证明认知语言学理论与传统英语阅读教学相结合是切实可行的。
本研究是认知语言学理论应用于教学的一次尝试,支持了魏在江等学者的观点——培养学生的概念转喻能力能够激发其学习兴趣、提高其英语阅读能力。希望本实验研究采用的课堂教学方法可以为英语教师提供一些参考。
Reading is one of the most important means of obtaining information and English reading is a major aspect of English language teaching. Many Chinese students find it hard to do English reading comprehension or read English articles even after years of learning. It is claimed by some linguists that students’interest in English will be aroused and their English reading proficiency will be improved significantly as their metonymic competence is well developed. This thesis sets out to apply the theory of conceptual metonymy to the practice of college English reading instruction in order to test the validity of Wei’s hypothesis. Meanwhile the project attempts to explore the way of designing English reading instruction with the assistance of the theory of cognitive linguistics in order to improve the effectiveness of the classroom teaching of reading.
This project is basically a quasi-experimental research. The thesis which is based on the theory of conceptual metonymy in the framework of cognitive linguistics, adopts a combination of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis.
The major findings of the study include the following aspects:
1) By introducing theory of conceptual metonymy, students’internal interest in English has been aroused and motivation of learning English has been promoted.
2) After the instruction of conceptual metonymy in reading class, students’awareness of metonymy has been raised and they become active readers. Furthermore, their metonymic competence has been promoted largely.
3) Students’interest being aroused and their metonymic competence being promoted have had some positive effects on improving students’reading proficiency. From the analysis of the post-test for reading comprehension, we find students in experimental group have made significant progress compared with their pre-test.
4) Analysis of the result of this experiment indicates that it is feasible to combine the traditional method of reading instruction with the way under the guidance of cognitive linguistics, specifically, to apply theory of conceptual metonymy to college English reading class in this study.
This research has provided evidence that it is feasible to apply cognitive theories to ESL class. It may enrich the range of applied research in the area of reading instruction in terms of cognitive linguistics. The experimental teaching procedures and activities of applying conceptual metonymy to reading class may provide experiences for EFL teachers with the methods of how to arouse students’interest and promote their motivation in English learning with the aid of cognitive theories.
引文
Al-Sharafi, A. 2004. Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach. New York: Palgrave.
Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. 2000. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4, pp. 335-370.
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought. pp. 275-287. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dirven, R. & R. P?rings. 2003. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, R. 1997. Reference Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. pp. 310-327. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought. pp. 61-76. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grabe, W. & F. L. Stoller. 2005. Teaching and Researching Reading. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Gui, S. 1985. Psycholinguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press. (桂诗春.心理语言学. 1985.上海:上海外语教育出版社.)
Halliday, M. & R. Hasan. 1976. Coheshion in English. London: Longman.
Jakobson, R. 2002. The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In Dirven, R. & R. P(O|¨)rings. (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. pp. 41-47. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jia, G. 2007. Experiencing English Integrated Coursebook. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (贾国栋.大学体验英语综合教程. 2007.北京:高等教育出版社.)
Koch, P. 1999. Frame and contiguity. In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought. pp. 139-167. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Koda, K. 2007. Insight into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Cambridge: Press of the University of Cambridge.
K(O|¨)vecses, Z. & G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View. Cognitive Linguistics 9, 1, pp. 37-77.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lan, C. 2005. Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor Research. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (蓝纯.认知语言学与隐喻研究. 2005.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.)
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites, Volume 1. Standford: Standford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Pratical Applications, Volume 2. Standford: Standford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1-38.
Larson-Hall, J. 2010. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS. New York & London: Routledge.
Li, K. & S. Li. 2008. A study on English majors’metonymic thinking mode training based on advanced English teaching. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2008(8), pp. 77-83. (李克,李淑康.基于高级英语的英语专业学生转喻思维的实证研究.北京第二外国语学院学报,2008(8),pp. 77-83.)
Li, Y. 2004. A Cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language. Shanghai: Donghua University Press.(李勇忠.语言转喻的认知阐释. 2004.上海:东华大学出版社.)
Li, Y. 2005. The conceptual nature of metonymy and its pragmatic significance. Foreign Language and Their Teaching, (8), pp. 1-4.(李勇忠.概念转喻的本质及其语用学意义. 2005.外语与外语教学,2005, (8), pp. 1-4.)
Liu, R. 1999. Research Methods in Foreign Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.(刘润清.外语教学中的科研方法. 1999.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.)
Mao, S. & Y. Chu. 2007. Metonymy and its impact on EFL teaching. Journal of Huan Institute of Engineering, 17(1), pp. 86-88(.毛帅梅,楚雅琪.转喻与外语教学.湖南工程学院学报,2007, 17(1),pp. 86-88.)
Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought. pp. 333-357. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. 2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In Barcelona, A. (Ed). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. pp. 215-232. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. (Eds.). 2003. Metonymy and PragmaticInferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. 2003. On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. (Eds), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inference. pp. 1-20. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Panther, K.-U. & L L. Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens. (Eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. pp. 236-263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radden, G. & Z. K(O|¨)vecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden. (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought. pp. 17-59. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Robinson, P. 2007. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Press of the University of Cambridge.
Robinson, P. & N. Ellis. (Eds). 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge Press.
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, (7), pp. 532-547.
Ruiz de Mendoza. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shen, J. 2000. A metonymy model of transferred designation of de-construction in Mandarin Chinese. Contemporary Linguistics, (1), pp. 3-15. (沈家煊. 转指和转喻.当代语言学,1999, (1), pp. 3-15.)
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Wei, Z. 2007. Conceptual integration, pragmatic inference and metonymic cognition. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 23(1), pp. 90-95. (魏在江.概念整合、语用推理与转喻认知.四川外国语学院学报,2007, 23(1), pp. 90-95.)
Wei, Z. 2007. The discourse cohesive function of conceptual metonymy. Journalof Foreign Languages, (2), pp. 29-36.(魏在江.概念转喻与语篇衔接.外国语,2007, (2), pp. 29-36.)
Wei, Z. 2007. A survey of textual metonymy. Foreign Language Research, (3), pp. 32-37.(魏在江.语篇转喻纵观.外语学刊,2007, (3).)
Wei, Z. 2009. Conceptual metonymy and English reading comprehension teaching. Foreign Language World, (1), pp. 71-77.(魏在江.概念转喻与英语阅读教学.外语界,2009, (1), pp. 71-77.)
Xiong, X. 1999. Cognitive Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. (熊学亮.认知语用学概论. 1999.上海:上海外语教育出版社.)
Yao, X. 2006. On the Rhetoricity of Reading. Shanghai: Shanghai University Press. (姚喜明.阅读的修辞性研究. 2006.上海:上海大学出版社)
