英语原型被动结构产生的ISG模式分析
|
摘要
通过考察英语被动结构研究的相关文献,本文将以往语言学家关于英语原型被动结构产生的研究,按研究方法分为四类:传统语法角度,结构主义角度,转换生成角度和认知角度。就英语典型被动结构产生而言,这四类研究所依赖的理论框架还不完备,所以对英语原型被动结构产生的解释就有不全面之嫌。
传统语法没有考虑人的识解在英语原型被动结构形成中的作用,也没有考虑英语原型被动结构的图式化过程,即人的识解经验是如何图式化化为表征概念结构的图式性结构,而是认为英语原型被动结构是主动结构形式转换的结果,这种形式转换至多可被认为是一种句法语法化,即典型图式性概念显性成为语法结构。结构主义完全忽略了英语原型被动结构产生的三大基本步骤:互动,图式化和语法化,而只从形式上来分析英语原型被动结构,认为其是由词序分布来决定的。这种形式分析只是对被动结构的一种表面形式上的结构描写,没有涉及英语原型被动结构的产生问题。转换生成语法没有考虑人的识解对英语原型被动结构形成的作用,而是认为英语原型被动结构是由主动结构从深层形式转换而来。这种深层的主动结构可被认为是图式化过程所形成的典型图式概念,这种从主动到被动的转换可被认为是一种句法语法化。认知语法对英语原型被动结构产生的研究都从人的识解出发,但这些研究要么缺少图式化过程,直接产生了被动结构,要么就是有了互动和图式化,而又忽略了句法语法化,直接产生了被动结构。
针对以上研究所存的研究理论框架不完备和对英语原型被动结构产生的解释不全面的问题,我们提出研究英语原型被动结构产生的ISG模式,即“互动-图式化-语法化”这一完整统一的理论框架。互动是指人们以各种各样的认知方式来识解外部世界。图式化是指人们在与外部世界互动的基础上所形成的,表征概念结构的图式性结构,包括意象图式,理想化认知模型,典型事件模型和图式意义上的原型等等。语法化在本文中是指句式构造语法化,指典型图式概念显性成为语法标记或手段。人们在与客观世界的互动体验中,会识解各种各样的一般性事件形成事件的理想化认知模型。在事件的理想化认知模型基础之上,人们由于识解各种各样的被动性事件从而也形成被动结构的理想化认知模型。对典型致使性事件从受动者角度识解的经验完全适合英语社团的人们所形成的英语被动结构的理想化认知模型,而英语被动结构的原型(图式意义上)作为英语被动结构理想化认知模型的副产品就随之而生。这种图式意义上的原型是表征英语被动结构的典型图式概念。然后,表征英语被动结构的典型图示概念语法化为英语原型被动结构。
Having reviewed the previous literature on the researches of English passive construction, we classify previous researches concerned with the formation of the prototypical English passive construction into four kinds by previous research methods: the traditional-grammar approach, structural approach, transformational approach and cognitive approach. We have discovered that the previous research frameworks on the study of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction aren’t complete or integrative and the previous account of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction isn’t all-sided.
The traditional-grammar approach has not considered the role of human’s construal to the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, or the schematization process concerned with the prototypical English passive construction, in which the construal experience is schematized to be the schematic conceptual structure. The traditional-grammar approach has just interpreted that the formation of the prototypical English passive construction results from the transformation from the corresponding active construction at the syntactical level. This syntactical transformation can at most be regarded as a kind of syntactical grammaticalization in which the canonical schematic concept gets manifested to be the grammatical construction. The structural approach has suspended all the major three steps, the interaction, schematization and grammaticalization, in the study on the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. The structural approach has analyzed the prototypical English passive construction by the word distribution and arrangement and it actually has not touched upon the issue of the generation of the passive construction, so it can only be ascribed to be a research at the descriptive level. The transformational approach hasn’t considered the human’s construal to the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. The transformational approach holds that the prototypical English passive construction is transformed syntactically from the corresponding active construction at the deep level independently of the semantics. The active construction at the deep level can be regarded as the canonical schematic concept which is the result of the schematization process and the transformation process from the active to the passive can be regarded as a kind of syntactical grammaticalization. The cognitive linguists all take the human’s construal as compulsory in the research of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, however, the cognitive linguists’researches either omit the schematization, namely, by only the interaction and grammaticalization, the prototypical English passive construction is generated, or neglect the grammaticalization, namely, by only the interaction and the schematization, the prototypical English passive construction is generated.
Aiming at the incompleteness of the previous research frameworks and the partiality of the previous account of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, we put forward the ISG model to study the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. ISG model is the theoretical framework of interaction-schematization-grammaticalization, which is integrative and unified. Interaction means people construe the outside world by utilizing different cognitive strategies. Schematization means the formation of the schematic forms which represent the conceptual structure, including Image Schema, Idealized Cognitive Model, canonical schematic concept, prototype effect at the schematic level and so on. Grammaticalization in this thesis refers to the syntactical grammaticalization in which the canonical schematic concept gets manifested to be the grammatical construction. In our interaction with the outside world, people will construe different kinds of simple events and form ICM of events. On the basis of EICM (ICM of events), people can form PEICM (ICM of English passive construction) by construing different kinds of passive events. The experience of construing the prototypical causative event from the affected entity fits PEICM perfectly in English community. The prototype (at the schematic level) is thus formed as the by-product of PEICM. This prototype at the schematic level is the canonical schematic concept representing the prototypical English passive construction. The canonical schematic concept representing the prototypical English passive construction is then grammaticalized to be the English prototypical passive construction.
传统语法没有考虑人的识解在英语原型被动结构形成中的作用,也没有考虑英语原型被动结构的图式化过程,即人的识解经验是如何图式化化为表征概念结构的图式性结构,而是认为英语原型被动结构是主动结构形式转换的结果,这种形式转换至多可被认为是一种句法语法化,即典型图式性概念显性成为语法结构。结构主义完全忽略了英语原型被动结构产生的三大基本步骤:互动,图式化和语法化,而只从形式上来分析英语原型被动结构,认为其是由词序分布来决定的。这种形式分析只是对被动结构的一种表面形式上的结构描写,没有涉及英语原型被动结构的产生问题。转换生成语法没有考虑人的识解对英语原型被动结构形成的作用,而是认为英语原型被动结构是由主动结构从深层形式转换而来。这种深层的主动结构可被认为是图式化过程所形成的典型图式概念,这种从主动到被动的转换可被认为是一种句法语法化。认知语法对英语原型被动结构产生的研究都从人的识解出发,但这些研究要么缺少图式化过程,直接产生了被动结构,要么就是有了互动和图式化,而又忽略了句法语法化,直接产生了被动结构。
针对以上研究所存的研究理论框架不完备和对英语原型被动结构产生的解释不全面的问题,我们提出研究英语原型被动结构产生的ISG模式,即“互动-图式化-语法化”这一完整统一的理论框架。互动是指人们以各种各样的认知方式来识解外部世界。图式化是指人们在与外部世界互动的基础上所形成的,表征概念结构的图式性结构,包括意象图式,理想化认知模型,典型事件模型和图式意义上的原型等等。语法化在本文中是指句式构造语法化,指典型图式概念显性成为语法标记或手段。人们在与客观世界的互动体验中,会识解各种各样的一般性事件形成事件的理想化认知模型。在事件的理想化认知模型基础之上,人们由于识解各种各样的被动性事件从而也形成被动结构的理想化认知模型。对典型致使性事件从受动者角度识解的经验完全适合英语社团的人们所形成的英语被动结构的理想化认知模型,而英语被动结构的原型(图式意义上)作为英语被动结构理想化认知模型的副产品就随之而生。这种图式意义上的原型是表征英语被动结构的典型图式概念。然后,表征英语被动结构的典型图示概念语法化为英语原型被动结构。
Having reviewed the previous literature on the researches of English passive construction, we classify previous researches concerned with the formation of the prototypical English passive construction into four kinds by previous research methods: the traditional-grammar approach, structural approach, transformational approach and cognitive approach. We have discovered that the previous research frameworks on the study of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction aren’t complete or integrative and the previous account of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction isn’t all-sided.
The traditional-grammar approach has not considered the role of human’s construal to the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, or the schematization process concerned with the prototypical English passive construction, in which the construal experience is schematized to be the schematic conceptual structure. The traditional-grammar approach has just interpreted that the formation of the prototypical English passive construction results from the transformation from the corresponding active construction at the syntactical level. This syntactical transformation can at most be regarded as a kind of syntactical grammaticalization in which the canonical schematic concept gets manifested to be the grammatical construction. The structural approach has suspended all the major three steps, the interaction, schematization and grammaticalization, in the study on the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. The structural approach has analyzed the prototypical English passive construction by the word distribution and arrangement and it actually has not touched upon the issue of the generation of the passive construction, so it can only be ascribed to be a research at the descriptive level. The transformational approach hasn’t considered the human’s construal to the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. The transformational approach holds that the prototypical English passive construction is transformed syntactically from the corresponding active construction at the deep level independently of the semantics. The active construction at the deep level can be regarded as the canonical schematic concept which is the result of the schematization process and the transformation process from the active to the passive can be regarded as a kind of syntactical grammaticalization. The cognitive linguists all take the human’s construal as compulsory in the research of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, however, the cognitive linguists’researches either omit the schematization, namely, by only the interaction and grammaticalization, the prototypical English passive construction is generated, or neglect the grammaticalization, namely, by only the interaction and the schematization, the prototypical English passive construction is generated.
Aiming at the incompleteness of the previous research frameworks and the partiality of the previous account of the formation of the prototypical English passive construction, we put forward the ISG model to study the formation of the prototypical English passive construction. ISG model is the theoretical framework of interaction-schematization-grammaticalization, which is integrative and unified. Interaction means people construe the outside world by utilizing different cognitive strategies. Schematization means the formation of the schematic forms which represent the conceptual structure, including Image Schema, Idealized Cognitive Model, canonical schematic concept, prototype effect at the schematic level and so on. Grammaticalization in this thesis refers to the syntactical grammaticalization in which the canonical schematic concept gets manifested to be the grammatical construction. In our interaction with the outside world, people will construe different kinds of simple events and form ICM of events. On the basis of EICM (ICM of events), people can form PEICM (ICM of English passive construction) by construing different kinds of passive events. The experience of construing the prototypical causative event from the affected entity fits PEICM perfectly in English community. The prototype (at the schematic level) is thus formed as the by-product of PEICM. This prototype at the schematic level is the canonical schematic concept representing the prototypical English passive construction. The canonical schematic concept representing the prototypical English passive construction is then grammaticalized to be the English prototypical passive construction.
引文
Bolinger, D. (1977). Transitivity and spatiality: The passive of prepositional verbs. In Adam Makkai, Valerie Becker makkai, & Luigi Heilmann (Eds.), Linguistics at the crossroads (pp. 57-78). Lake Bluff,Ⅲ. Jupiter.
Cameron, C.A. (1990). The semantics and pragmatics of voice systems: A functional analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Charleston, B.M. (1960). Studies on the emotional and affective means of expression in modern English. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. New York: Plenum.
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2000). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). Voice: beyond control and affectedness. In Barbara Fox, & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: form and function (pp. 89-117). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, O. (1999). On the role played by iconicity in grammaticalization processes. In Nanny M, & O. Fischer (Eds.), Form miming meaning: iconicity in language and literature (pp. 345-369). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foely, W.A., & Robert D. V. V. (1984). Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fries, C.C. (1952). The structure of English. London: Longman.
Heyvaert, L. (2003). A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1996). Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 3-19.
Granger, S. (1983). The be+past participle Construction in English with special Emphasis on the Passive. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V..
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. England: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1948). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen and Unmin.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langecker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol 1: theoretical prerequisites. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol-the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W. (2004b). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh-the embodied mind and its challenge to the western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language form and language function. Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Palmer, F. R. (1965). The English verb. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Roberts, P. (1956). Patterns of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Radford, A. (2000). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Saeed, J. L. (2004). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Saussure, F. D. (2001). Course in general linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Sweet, H. (1891). A new English grammar logical and historical, Part 1. London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. England: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2001). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
薄冰. (2000).高级英语语法.北京:世界知识出版社.
罗利群. (2003).论英语语态转换的限制.保山师专学报, (1), 55-67.
王寅. (2005a).认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社.
王寅. (2005b).认知语法概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王志军. (2002a).英汉被动句认知对比研究.复旦大学博士论文.
王志军. (2002b).英汉被动句式的衍生.外国语, (3), 44-50.
王志军. (2005).英汉被动句认知对比研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
吴敏. (2006).英语被动结构的理想化认知模式研究.南京师范大学学位论文.
熊学亮,王志军. (2002).被动句式的原型研究.外语研究, (1), 19-23.
石毓智. (2001).汉语句子组织信息的原则-兼论句法临摹和语言系统之关系.上海认知语言学会议论文.
Cameron, C.A. (1990). The semantics and pragmatics of voice systems: A functional analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Charleston, B.M. (1960). Studies on the emotional and affective means of expression in modern English. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. New York: Plenum.
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2000). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). Voice: beyond control and affectedness. In Barbara Fox, & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: form and function (pp. 89-117). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, O. (1999). On the role played by iconicity in grammaticalization processes. In Nanny M, & O. Fischer (Eds.), Form miming meaning: iconicity in language and literature (pp. 345-369). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foely, W.A., & Robert D. V. V. (1984). Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fries, C.C. (1952). The structure of English. London: Longman.
Heyvaert, L. (2003). A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1996). Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 3-19.
Granger, S. (1983). The be+past participle Construction in English with special Emphasis on the Passive. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V..
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. England: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1948). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen and Unmin.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langecker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol 1: theoretical prerequisites. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol-the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W. (2004b). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh-the embodied mind and its challenge to the western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language form and language function. Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Palmer, F. R. (1965). The English verb. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Roberts, P. (1956). Patterns of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Radford, A. (2000). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Saeed, J. L. (2004). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Saussure, F. D. (2001). Course in general linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Sweet, H. (1891). A new English grammar logical and historical, Part 1. London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. England: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2001). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
薄冰. (2000).高级英语语法.北京:世界知识出版社.
罗利群. (2003).论英语语态转换的限制.保山师专学报, (1), 55-67.
王寅. (2005a).认知语言学探索.重庆:重庆出版社.
王寅. (2005b).认知语法概论.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王志军. (2002a).英汉被动句认知对比研究.复旦大学博士论文.
王志军. (2002b).英汉被动句式的衍生.外国语, (3), 44-50.
王志军. (2005).英汉被动句认知对比研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
吴敏. (2006).英语被动结构的理想化认知模式研究.南京师范大学学位论文.
熊学亮,王志军. (2002).被动句式的原型研究.外语研究, (1), 19-23.
石毓智. (2001).汉语句子组织信息的原则-兼论句法临摹和语言系统之关系.上海认知语言学会议论文.