概念形式表征与语义变化转换研究
|
摘要
人类思维、表达和交际伊始,语言就内化于人脑中了。在对其进行研究之前,并不存在理论上的语言体系。即便是开始研究之后,由于历史上很长一个时期内,语言研究隶属于哲学、修辞学、文学,也没能建构起一个比较完整的语言体系;直到19世纪初,随着语言学成为一门独立的学科,才得以初步完成。这是语言研究第一个奠基式的成就,是科学语言研究内在的、固有的、核心的一部分,尽管主要还只是描写性的。现代语言学,从索绪尔后的结构主义语言学、到转换生成语法、到发端于伦敦学派的系统功能语言学、再到今天的认知语言学,一路走来,都在不断补充、发展、完善语言体系的研究,只是在哲学基础、视角、方法或目标上有所不同。前贤的成果是后人研究的基础,研究的向前推进并非对已有研究成果的否定,而是补充与完善。索绪尔前的语言研究和现代语言学都为语言学事业的健康发展作出了贡献,虽大小不一,却各有千秋。迄今为止,仍然无法令人信服地解释一个概念最初是如何依附于一个简单形式的,也即最基本的、最简单的语言单位是如何产生的;而语言的任意性只能是一个较好的遁词而已,在今后相当长的一个时期内仍然还会是语言学的一块心病。自索绪尔以来,在假设语言具有任意性的基础上,研究主要针对由最基本的、最简单的单位构成的这个语言体系,并且着重描写、分析和解释。本研究的对象依然还是这个体系、依然还是着重描写、分析和解释,稍有不同的是视角的更换和目标的追求。研究的视角多种多样,视角本身不存在对或错,只是在结果上可能会有差异,如看到的多或少、全面或片面、远或近、新或旧等。着眼于科学研究的标准,语言研究应特别注重以下几个方面:依靠事实、尊重事实、符合事实,描写、解释的理论基础要统一而前沿,描写、解释要忠实、充分而全面,理论概括要自然、逻辑而系统,事实与理论、理论与应用、应用与事实要相互联系、相互作用、相互依存。从词概念框架视角来研究概念的形式表征和语义的变化转换似乎较有可能接近上述标准。而且,迄今为止这种尝试还不是很多,尤其是立足于历时的词概念框架视角。
基于框架、域和百科知识语义学等理论和国内着重于共时和理解的应用成果,本研究侧重历时角度对词概念框架再行定义,并以重新定义的词概念框架为视角,立足于概念的产生,探讨其语言形式表征和语义的变化转换。本研究选择猪、狗、鹰、鸡和蝇这五个动物词作为对象代表,依靠所拟构的框架,以其最初的施指为起点,通过“五个结合”即历时与共时、概念/意义与形式、词法与句法、语言与言语、聚合和组合,试图揭示后入框架概念、概念组合的产生及其形式表征的规律,框架内形式单位概念变化转换的规律,框架内形式单位参与命名框架外客体的规律,框架内语言单位概念消失的表现形式、动因及其对语言体系的影响,其间补充转喻研究的理论概括;以期探究知识/概念的本质、结构和组织,概念之间相互联系的方式,形式表征和理解概念时概念之间相互作用的方式如框架/基底与突显、预设、包含、株连,概念结构与形式结构的关系,最终补充、完善认知语义学;还期望有助于话语的建构和理解、母语和二语教学与习得效率的提高,因为它能把感觉感知经验、意象图式、文化模式、认知机制、概念产生、形义结构、聚合组合等结合在一起,构成一个连续统;从而可相互联系、相互影响、相互依存。
本研究首先尽可能广泛地搜集语料,然后忠实而全面地描写、细致入微地分析、充分而切实地解释,最后自然而系统地归纳、概括和抽象,性有量为支撑;辅之以观察、访谈、内省、比较等方法。
本研究的结果主要从以下六个方面来概括。
1、词概念框架拟构及其本体研究
共拟构了12个框架(包括子框架)。框架起点词概念与其它概念的关系大致有四种:领主与所属关系、源头与水流关系、整体与部分关系/部分与整体关系、属与种/种与属关系。五个框架的共性主要体现在概念的本质、概念链和框架形成的机制、主要内容等方面,差异性则见诸于框架元素的有无和多寡、层级的复杂程度等。词概念框架的属性有:1)知识表征模式、2)认知模式、3)涉语活动的基础,特征有:1)具众星拱月状、2)结构逻辑、3)扩张变化、4)主角为认知范畴、5)连续性与阶段性相结合。
2、后入框架概念的形式表征研究
后入框架概念形式表征的一般规律:以需表征概念的中心成分为出发点,根据交际任务和目的,依靠框架的相关部分和语境,选择视角,集聚注意力于焦点,突显某一或某些限定成分,隐略其他,使用框架内、语言中现成的单位,最大限度地遵循经济原则。限定成分的突显受到语内和语外因素的制约。语内因素包括词化程度、类推规律、概念内容、上下文、双音节化、语体等;语外因素包括民族的历史、文化、社会、经济、自然环境,体验、认知心理、世界观,语言运用的习惯,等等。具体说来,后入框架概念的语言形式表征规律有16条。
3、框架内形式单位概念的变化转换研究
形式单位概念的变化转换受以下因素的制约:人的感觉和认知能力,客观现实现象固有的、内在的、逻辑的联系。形式单位概念变化的一般动因是:人对原概念所概括的对象的接触、互动、了解、熟悉、认识、概括、抽象,以及在此基础上产生的主观认识和评价(包括褒和贬),对需要交流、思考、概括的新对象的感觉和认知,以及对两者的综合,尤其是对两者的关系或某一或某些属性相似性的确定。已被形式表征、并固化在语言体系中的原始概念,变化后仍沿用原来的形式,是以下几个因素共同作用的结果:1)便利、2)经济、3)语境与框架、4)局限。原始概念转换后仍沿用原来的形式,除了上述后三个因素在起作用外,还有一个动因即修辞;另外,文学创作还追求新奇。
按框架内形式单位概念发生变化转换的比例大小排序,依次为“鹰”、“狗”、“鸡”、“蝇”、“猪”框架。特征越显著,就越突显,也就越容易被人所关注,自然就容易作为参照的标的。
发生变化转换的简单词概念只占总数的3.17%,而其变化转换所占比例却是10.83%;动物作为整体更容易与其部分、所属或其他事物关联和比较;完形感知比部分感知容易,发散感知比纵深感知容易,完形感知后的发散或纵深思维比部分感知后的发散或纵深思维要容易。
在发生变化转换的189个形式单位概念中,最初的施指为具体事物和行为的占绝大多数;人对实体和行为事件的感觉感知比对抽象事物要容易得多,前者比后者直观而醒目、易聚人的注意力,认识起来也省力一些,形式表征也容易一些。最初施指具体事物的112个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,仍然施指具体事物的有100个次;把一个实体概念和另一个实体概念联系起来,然后隐喻或转喻要比对其进行属性或特征的概括抽象更容易更普遍。最初施指行为/状态的64个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,仍然施指行为/状态的47个次,施指具体事物的6个次,施指抽象概念的21个次;人类思维在同一水平线上(如从具体/行为/抽象到具体/行为/抽象)或同一框架的同一逻辑结构层次上运行省力一些;若要从行为/状态中抽象出属性,则需要观察、发现、分析、比较、综合、判断、推理、概括等,显然是颇费精力的;把行为/状态作为整体从中抽象出高度概括的属性比从构成行为事件的某一或某些要素当中抽象出相应的属性要困难一些;如果根据行为事件只突显构成行为事件的某一要素如施事则有违思维的习惯,难度也大得多。最初施指抽象概念的13个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,全都仍然只施指抽象概念;人类思维的规律一般是从具体到抽象,从抽象再回到具体难度要大得多。
形式单位概念变化转换的规律涉及具体动因、机制、途径、思维。
1)具体动因
(1)功能动因。五个词概念框架经变化转换后附带感情色彩的形式单位概念所占比例都超过了60%,这证明概念、语言是体验的。
人类在表征抽象概念时较常采用具象/体表达方式,符合实现最基本的交际目的和任务的要求。
简便表达的理据主要有下面三种:一是,目的概念与原概念不属同一范畴,也不属同一事件框架,但两者在某一或某些方面具有内在的、固有的或基于人的评价的相似性;其次,目的概念是原概念的次类,类与次类相关,且具质的同一性;最后,目的概念与原概念不属同一范畴,但属同一行为事件框架,两者具有内在的、固有的相关性。三种理据的数量分别为53、8、21各占总数233的22.75%、3.43%、9.01%;不同范畴事物间的相似性比同一范畴或同一事件框架内事物之间的相关性更能驱动简便表达;汉民族似乎不大习惯于把同一范畴的事物纵向归并到上位层级范畴或进行次范畴化,是否更习惯于发散思维,还有待进一步研究;而要认知同一事件框架里元素之间的联系,尤其是位于不同逻辑结构层次上的元素之间的联系,难度也不小。这组数据在一定程度上体现了语言的经济性,同时也表明语言经济是要受一定条件制约的。
(2)发生学上的动因
①客观相关性和相似性
②基于人的认识或评价的相关性
首先,原概念是种,目的概念是类,目的概念包含原概念,具有种与类的相关性。但目的概念这个类不是现成的,是新建的,是以人的认识或评价为基础的。若没有这个基础,也就没有这个新类。
其次,原概念是领主/整体,目的概念是所属/部分,它们之间具有领主/整体与所属/部分的相关性。所属即属性或特征,是人对领主的认识或评价的结果并强加于领主;而部分也承载了人的认识或评价。
再次,原概念施指一个行为事件或行为事件框架里的一个元素,目的概念是该行为事件框架里的一个元素或另一个元素,它们之间具有事件/元素与元素的相关性。目的概念所施指的这个元素承载了人对施事的认识或/和评价。
最后,目的概念是原概念的标志或预兆,可视为领主所领有。标志或预兆什么是以人的认识或评价为基础的;若没有这个基础,也就没有标志或预兆。
③基于或牵涉到人的认识或评价的相似性
首先,原概念和目的概念之间的相似性是以人对原概念的认识或评价为基础的;若没有这个基础,它们之间也就无所谓相似。其次,原概念和目的概念之间在某一方面具有客观相似性,在此基础上,再掺入人对原概念的认识或评价。
④相似性或相关性与人的评价的结合或三者的结合
首先,相关性与人的认识/评价相结合。客观相关性是变化转换的基础,人的认识或评价只是把目的概念的范畴缩小。
其次,相似性与人的认识/评价相结合。客观相似性是转换的基础,人的认识或评价只是转换原概念的范畴。
最后,相关性、相似性与人的认识/评价三者的结合。客观相关性是变化或转换的基础,人的认识或评价则作为相似的基础,并把目的概念变为原概念的更为直接的上位层次范畴。
2)机制
(1)变化机制:出于附带感情色彩,生动、形象、具体表达,或简便表达的目的,依靠框架的相关元素,(或者)突显集聚注意力的客观相关/似性和基于或牵涉到人的主观评价的相关/似性,保留或变化中心成分,增加、减少、变化或转换某一或某些限定成分。一般说来,中心成分不变,只增加某一或某些限定成分导致概念缩小也即以类代种;中心成分不变,只减少某一或某些限定成分导致概念的扩大也即以种代类;中心成分不变,只转换并增加/减少某一或某些限定成分导致概念的平移也即在同一范畴内以一个成员代指另一个成员。不过,概念扩大也可缘起下面四种情况,共计38个,占总数60的63.33%:①中心成分变化,限定成分增加;②中心成分变化,限定成分既减少又增加;③中心成分基本不变,只减少行为施事和增加某些限定成分;④中心成分基本不变,只变化限定成分。
(2)转换机制:出于附带感情色彩,生动、形象、具体表达,或简便表达的目的,依靠框架,从某一视角,(或者)突显集聚注意力的某一方面:原概念和目的概念内在的、固有的或常规的相似性,原概念和目的概念内在的、固有的、常规的或民俗的相关性,基于或牵涉到人的主观评价的相关/似性,在此基础上保留原概念的某一或某些限定成分(有些还增加限定成分),其它的限定成分改变,中心成分也改变。
①保留限定成分即原概念和目的概念之间的相似性,包括客观相似性、夹有人对原概念比较复杂的评价或民俗认识的客观相似性和基于人对原概念的评价的主观相似性。
②保留原概念的相关部分,包括整体的部分、领主的所属、行为事件的某一要素。
3)途径
(1)变化的途径主要通过转喻,大多数是在事件框架里进行的。动物家庭/社会化程度或其本身复杂程度越高,人对其认知的广度和深度也就越高,相应地,有关概念、转喻的复杂程度也越高;而事件框架比单个的实体概念框架要复杂得多。
(2)概念转换的途径主要通过隐喻和转喻。
①通过隐喻:客观的属性或特征映射,人对原概念的评价映射,基于人对原概念评价的关系、比重、工具、作用、状态、行为结果或作为等的映射。
②通过转喻:整体代部分,领主代所属,行为事件中的一个要素代另一个要素,整个行为事件指代其间的一个要素,一个要素代整个行为事件。
在233次变化转换中,通过隐喻的有83次,占35.62%,通过转喻的有150次,占64.38%;这一结果在一定程度上支持了一些学者的推断,即在组织概念时转喻比隐喻更不可或缺。
4)思维
(1)变化的思维特征
①流线型
概念在同一范畴内的从种到类/从类到种、从部分到整体/从整体到部分、从成员到成员的向上或向下的纵向或水平线变化,思维呈流线型,可分为直线流线型和曲折流线型。
②流线-跳跃-流线型
概念先在同一范畴内从类到种、向下纵向变化,再从一范畴横向变化到另一范畴;在后一范畴,从种到类、向上纵向变化。
③连续跳跃型
概念先在同一范畴内横向变化到另一个概念,再在变化后的概念所在的(次)范畴内横向变化到另一个概念。
(2)转换的思维特征
呈跳跃性,有两种情形:单一跳跃和连续跳跃;跳跃需要跳板,跳板多种多样:整体与部分/施事与受事的相关性、基于人的评价的原概念和目的概念之间的相似性、人对原概念的评价或认识、人对原概念属性的抽象、行为事件框架、人对框架元素的评价、人对框架元素的概括。
4、框架内形式单位参与命名框架外事物的研究
框架内形式单位参与命名框架外事物的机制可概括为:主要基于其施指与需命名事物之间的相似/关性,以及它与所突显的成分之间的相关性,依靠框架,通过隐喻或转喻,转换外延,丰富内涵,经济简洁。有框架内形式单位参与的整个合成通名形式上是定中式,概念/语义上是主题述谓结构;述谓的方式很少是直陈的,大都是隐/转喻的。述谓与主题组合的理据主要有两种即相似性和相关性。基于相似性,述谓通过隐喻对主题进行陈述;基于相关性,述谓通过转喻对主题进行陈述。通名可略去中心成分,表现为转喻,即部分代整体。貌似非常简单的限定成分实则是个转喻,而且种类颇多。
5、命名和语义变换中的转喻研究
转喻的关联动因有三大基础,即域的属性/特征抽象、域的纵向归并与次/切分和域元素的横向联系。原概念与目的概念之间还可能有一种关系即领主与所属。囊括范畴、概念、事件框架的域具有模糊性;原概念与目的概念属于哪一个范畴是由关于这两个概念的知识网络和语境来确定的,而凭借行为事件框架的逻辑结构及其元素则一般可确定原概念和目的概念是否属同一行为事件框架。转喻包含隐喻,而隐喻又掺入人的评价。一个转喻可内包一个以上的转喻。
6、框架内语言单位概念消失的研究
框架内语言单位概念消失的语外动因有:客体的消亡、客体的分类、社会大背景的改变、客体的发展变化、人的评价改变、语言社区的确认;语内动因有:语言的经济性、语义的显性度、语言的体验性、词语的替代、语体色彩、感情色彩、方言色彩。语言单位概念消失后,给语言体系带来的影响如下:词语的交替、历史词语、复杂的语义系统、旧形复活、潜在的历史词语、庞大的聚合系统即大量的只具有诸如语体色彩、感情色彩或方言色彩这样细微差别的同义词语;曾经的语言单位概念因其存在对其所在的语言结构式就产生了影响即有助于其固化,消失后影响仍在,即构式的固化与变化。
From the very beginning of human thought, expression and communication, language has been internalized in the brain. Before its study, there was no theorietical system of language; even after the beginning, a relatively complete system of language had not been able to build up because it was part of philosophy, rhetoric or literature within a long period of time in the history. Until the early 19th century was it initially completed. Although the study is mainly descriptive only, it is the first ground-breaking achievement, which is the inherent, intrinsic and central part of the scientific study of language. Modern liguistics, from the post-Saussurean structural linguistics, to formal linguistics, to systematical-functional linguistics, originating from the London School, and then to nowaday's cognitive linguistics, along the way, has been constantly complementing, improving and developing the study of language system, and they differ only in the philosophical foundation, perspective, method, or goal. Previous research results are the bases of posterior studies, and the progress in the study is not to negate previous research results, but to complement and improve. Both the pre-Saussurean language research and modern linguistics have contributed to the healthy development of linguistics, and although different in size, they each have its own historical significance. So far, it has not been able to be convincingly explained yet how a concept is at first attached to a simple linguistic form, that is, how the most basic and simple language units are produced. Since Saussure, the study, on the supposition of language arbitrariness, has been mainly aiming at the language system consisting of the most basic and simple units, focusing on description, analysis and explanation. The object of this study is still this system, and it still focuses on description and explanation. What is slightly different is perspective change and goal pursuit. There is a variety of perspectives, which are not in itself right or wrong, but the results of which may vary, such as to see the more or the less, the full or the one-sided, the far or the near, the new or the old, etc.. For the standards of scientific research, language study should pay particular attention to the following aspects: to rely on, respect and conform to the fact; the theoretical foundation of description and explanation to be unitary and frontier; the description and explanation to be faithful, adequate and comprehensive; the theoretical generalization to be natural, logical, and systematical; fact and theory, theory and application, application and the fact to be interrelated, interactional and interdependent. It seems more likely to be close to the above criteria to study the linguistic representation of concept and the shift and transformation of semantic meaning from the perspective of lexical concept frame. Moreover, this attempt has so far not been made a lot, especially based on the diachronic lexical concept frame.
Based on frame semantics, domain theory and encyclopedic semantics, etc. and on the results of the application of the above theories at home focusing on synchrony and understanding, this study re-defines lexical concept frame more from the perspective of diachrony, and starting from the formation of concept, addresses its linguistic representation and semantic meaning shift and transformation from the perspective of re-defined lexical concept frame. This study chooses the five animal words猪,狗,鹰,鸡and蝇as object representatives, and relying on the simulated animal word frames, with their first referents as a starting point, through the‘5 combinations’(i.e. diachrony and synchrony, concept / meaning and form, morphology and syntax, language and utterance, paradigm and syntagm), attempts to reveal the laws of the formation of concept and conceptual combination entering the frame after the starting-point lexical concept and their linguistic representation, the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit concept and the use of in-frame linguistic unit as the secondary material to name outside-frame object, and the forms of and the causes for the disappearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept and its effects on the language system, and complements the theoretical generalization of the previous research on metonymy. It is to be wished to investigate the nature, structure and organization of knowledge/concept, the way in which concepts are correlated to, and the way in which concepts interact upon each other when they are represented and understood in discourse; and it is also to be wished to help learners with the construction and understanding of discourse, and the increase of the efficiency of the mother tongue and second/foreign language teaching and acquisition, due to the organization of sensational and perceptional experience, image schema, cultural model, cognitive mechanism, concept formation, the structures of form and meaning, and paradigm and syntagm, thus constructing a continuum, the elements of which can be interrelated to, interacted and interdepend upon.
This study holds the naturalist attitude: first of all, collecting data as widely as possible; and then, faithfully and comprehensively describing, painstakingly analyzing, adequately and realistically explaining; finally, naturally and systematically generalizing and abstracting, with quantity supporting quality; to be complemented by observation, interview, introspection, comparison and other methods.
The results of this study are as follows.
1.On lexical concept frame itself
Twelve frames, including subframes, are simulated altogether. There are generally four types of relations between the starting-point lexical concept and others within a frame: owner and possession, source and flow, whole and part/part and whole, genus and species. The commonalities of the five frames are mainly embodied in the nature of concept, the formation mechanisms of concept chain and frame, while the differences are mainly found in the existence or nonexistence and more or less of frame element and the complexity of frame hierarchy. The properties of lexical concept frame are as follows: (1) Knowledge representation model, (2) cognitive model, and (3) the foundation of language involved activities; the characteristics are as follows: (1)the starting-point lexical concept as the center with many other ones around it, (2) logical structure, (3) expansion and change, (4) cognitive category as the major role, and (5 ) the combination of continuity and stage.
2.On the representation of the concept into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept
The general rules of the representation of the concepts into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept are as follows: taking the central element of the concept needed to be represented as the starting point, according to the task and purpose of communication, and relying on the relevant parts of the frame and the context, one selects the perspective, concentrates his attention upon the focus, highlights one or more definite elements and hides the others, uses the present language units within the frame, maximumly following the economic principle; the prominence of definite elements is controlled by intralingual and extralingual factors; the former includes the degree of lexicalization, the law of analogy , the content of concept, context, dissyllabication, stylistics, etc.; the latter includes national history, society, culture, economy, natural environment, experience, cognitive psychology, world outlook, language use habits, etc.. Specifically, there are 16 rules omitted here.
3.On the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit concept
The shift and transformation of linguistic unit concept is subject to the following factors: human sensational and cognitive ability, the intrinsic, inherent and logical correlation of objective realities and phenomena. The general motivations of the shift of linguistic unit concept are as follows: human contact, interaction, understanding, familiarity, cognition, generalization and abstraction of the object represented by the source concept, and subjective understanding and evaluation (including commendation and derogation) based on the above, and the sensation and perception of the new object needed to be pondered, generalized, and communicated, and the synthesis of the two, in particular the determination of the relation between the two, or a certain/some similar properties. It is the result of acting together of the following factors: (1) convenience, (2) economy, (3) context and frame, and (4) limitations that the shifted primitive concept, which has been represented by the linguistic unit and entrenched in language, could be represented by the original linguistic unit; the use of the original linguistic unit to represent the transformed primitive concept is motivated by rhetoric as well as the above-mentioned three factors; in addition, literature creation seeks novelty.
The order made in accordance with the proportion of the shift and transformation of linguistic unit concepts is as follows,“鹰”,“狗”,“鸡”,“蝇”, and“猪”frame. The more conspicuous the characteristics of an object are, the more prominent it is, also the easier it will be to attract human attention, naturally becoming a reference point more easily.
Shifted/transformed simple word concepts amount to only 3.17%of the total, while their shifts and transformations make up 10.83%; an animal as a whole is much easier to be associated and compared with its part and possession or other objects; gestalt perception is easier than part perception, and divergence perception is easier than depth perception; divergence or depth thinking after gestalt perception is easier than that after part perception.
Absolutely most out of the 189 shifted/transformed linguistic unit concepts refer to the concrete things and action events, the perception of which is much easier than that of abstract things, because the former is more directly perceived and conspicuous than the latter, so attracting human attention more easily, and easier to understand and represent in language. 100 out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are concrete things still refer to concrete things after shift/transformation; it is much easier and more common to associate one concept of a concrete thing with another and then to make a metaphor or metonymy of it than to generalize and abstract its attributes or characteristics. Out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are actions/states, 47 still refer to actions/states, 6 to concrete things, 21 to abstract things, after shift/transformation; it is labor-saving for human thinking to run at the same level (for example, from the concrete/actions/the abstract to the concrete/ actions/the abstract) or the same logical level of a frame. It is obviously energy-consuming to abstract attributes from actions/states, due to observation, discovery, analysis, comparison and synthesis, judgement, inference, generalization, and so on; it is more difficult to abstract highly-generalized attributes from the action / state as a whole than from one or more elements of an action event; it is contrary to the habit of thinking and also much more difficult to highlight a certain element, such as agent , upon the action event. The 13 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are abstract things still refer to abstract things after shift/transformation; the general law of human thinking is from the concrete to the abstract, so it is much more difficult to go back to the concrete from the abstract.
The laws of linguistic unit concept shift and transformation involves specific cause, mechanism, approach, and thinking.
(1) Specific causes
①Functional motivations
In all the five animal word frames, the percentage of linguistic unit concepts with emotional facet attached is more than 60, which proves that both concept and language are experienced.
It meets the need to achieve the most basic objectives and tasks of a communication that imageable and embodymental expressions are more commonly used when abstract concepts are talked about.
There are mainly three motivations of simple expression: first, the target and source concept do not belong to the same category, nor the same action event frame, but have the inherent and intrinsic similarity or the one based on human evaluation in one or two aspects; secondly, the target is a sub-category of the source, and categories and sub-categories are relative and have the identity of quality; finally, the target and the source do not belong to the same category, but the same action event frame, and have the inherent and intrinsic relativity. The number of three motivations is respectively as follows: 53, 8, 21, accounting for 22.75%, 3.43%, 9.01% of the total number of 233; the similarity between objects in different categories is more able to motivate simple expression than the relativity of members/elements in the same category/action event frame; it seems that the Han people is not quite accustomed to incorporating vertically the objects of the same category into a superordinate category or subcategorization; whether we are more accustomed to divergent thinking awaits further research; actually, it is also difficult to discover the relations of the elements in the same action event frame, especially those of the elements at the different logical levels. This set of data, to some extent, reflects the economy of language, at the same time shows that it is subject to certain conditions.
②Genetic motivations
(a) Objective relativity and similarity
(b) Relativity based on human understanding/evaluation
First of all, the source concept is species, the target is genus, the latter includes the former, and between them there is the relativity of species and genus; however, the target, i.e. a genus, is not present, but newly constructed, based on human understanding/evaluation; without this basis, this new genus does not exist.
Secondly, the source refers to an owner/ a whole, the target refers to its possession/ part, and between them there is the relativity of owner/whole and possession/part; possessions mainly are the owner’s attributes or characteristics, which are the results of human understanding/evaluation of the owner and then imposition on it; the part also carries human understanding/assessment.
Thirdly, the source refers to an action event/ an element of an action event frame, the target refers to an element in the frame/another element, and between them there is relativity of event/element and element/ element; the element referred to by the target carries human understanding or /and evaluation.
Finally, the target is a sign or omen of the source, which can be regarded as owned by the source; the sign or omen is based upon human understanding/evaluation; without the foundation, there is no sign or omen.
(c) Similarity based on or related to human understanding/evaluation
For one thing, the similarity between the source and target concept is based on human understanding/evaluation of the source; without this basis, there is no similarity. For another, there is an objective similarity between the source and target concept, on the basis of which human understanding/evaluation is added to.
(d) the combination of similarity/ relativity and human evaluation or the combination of similarity, relativity and human evaluation
First of all, the combination of relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift and transformation, and human understanding/evaluation narrows the category of the source concept. Second, the combination of similarity and human understanding/evaluation; objective similarity is the basis of shift, and human understanding/evaluation transforms the category of the source. Finally, the combination of similarity, relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift or transformation, and human understanding/evaluation is the basis of similarity and changes the target into a more direct superordinate category of the source.
(2) Mechanisms
①Shift mechanism: relying on relevant elements in the frame,(or) highlighting the objective relativity / similarity, which gathers human attention, and relativity / similarity based on human subjective evaluation, the central component is retained or shifted, and definite components are increased, decreased, or shifted/transformed for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, embodimental, or simple expression. Generally speaking, if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are increased, the concept is narrowed, i.e. genus for species; if the central element remains unchanged, and only one or some definite elements are reduced, the concept is enlarged, i.e. species for genus; if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are transformed and increased/decreased, the concept is translated, i.e. one member for another in the same category. However, the concept can be expanded duo to the following four cases, for a total of 38, accounting for 63.33 percent of the total 60: (a) the central component shifts, and definite components increase; (b) the central component shifts, and definite components not only reduce but also increase; (c) the central component is essentially the same, and only the action agent reduces and certain definite components increase; (d) the central component is essentially the same, only definite components shift.
②Transformation mechanism: relying on the frame, (or) from a certain perspective highlighting a certain aspect which gathers human attention: the intrinsic, inherent or conventional similarity/ relativity of the source and target concept, similarity/ relativity based on or related to human subjective evaluation, and on this basis, a certain/some definite components of the source concept are retained (sometimes definite components are increased), the others are shifted, and the central component is also shifted, for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, specific, or simple expression.
(a) Retaining definite components, i.e. the similarity between the source and target concept, including the objective, the objective with comparatively complex human evaluation or folk understanding added to, and the subjective based on human evaluation.
(b) A relevant part of the source concept has been retained as the target concept, including a part of the whole, a possession of the owner, a certain element of the action event frame.
(3) Channels
①Shifts are mainly through metonymy, most of which are carried out in event frames. The higher the degree of the domesticalization/socialization of an animal or the complexity of its own is, the higher the breadth and depth of human knowledge is, accordingly, also the higher the level of complexity of the relevant concept and metonymy is; the event frame is much more complex than the single physical object concept frame.
②Transformations are mainly through metaphor and metonymy.
(a) Through metaphor: the mapping of objective attributes or characteristics, of the human evaluation of the source, and of the relation, proportion, use, state, result, etc. based on human evaluation of the source.
(b) Through metonymy: part for whole, owner for possession, one element for another element in the action event frame, the whole action event for an element, and an element for the whole action event.
In 233 shifts and transformations, the number of those through metaphor is 83, accounting for 35.62 percent, and the number of those through metonymy is 150, accounting for 64.38%; this result, to some extent, supports the suggestion of some scholars that metonymy may be more fundamental to conceptual organization than metaphor.
(4) Thinking
①The characteristics of thinking in shift
(a) Streamlined
When linguistic unit concepts shift from species/ genus to genus/ species, from part/ whole to whole/part, from member to member within the same category (upwardly/downwardly vertically or horizontally), thinking is streamlined, which can be divided into straightly and tortuously streamlined.
(b) Streamlined-leaping-streamlined
The concept shifts from genus to species within the same category (downwardly vertically), and then from one category to another (horizontally); in the latter category, it shifts from species to genus (upwardly vertically).
(c) Continuous leap
One concept shifts horizontally to another within the same category, and then horizontally to third in the (sub) category to which the shifted concept belongs.
②The characteristics of thinking in transformation
Thinking in transformation is leaping, and there are two cases: a single leap and leaping straight; leap needs springboards which is various: the relativity of whole and part/agent and patient, the similarity between the source and the target based upon human evaluation, human evaluation/understanding of the source, human abstraction of the attributes of the source, action event frame, human evaluation/ generalization of frame element.
4.On the use of in-frame linguistic units as minor naming materials for out-frame objects
The mechanism of naming things outside the frame with in-frame linguistic units involved can be summarized as follows: mainly on the basis of the similarity/ relativity of the unit’s referent and the thing to be named, and the relativity between the unit and its highlighted component, relying on the frame, through metaphor or metonymy, the extension is transformed, and the connotation is enriched, economical and simple.
The linguistic structure of the composite common name with the in-frame linguistic unit involved is the definite plus the central, its conceptual/semantic structure is the theme plus the predication. The predication is seldom declarative, but metaphorical/metonymical. There are two motivations of the combination of the theme and the predicate, i.e. similarity and relativity. Based on similarity, the predicate declares the theme through metaphor, while based on relativity, through metonymy. The central element of the name can be omitted, resulting in a metonymy, i.e. part for whole. The seemingly simple definite actually is a metonymy, with various forms.
5.On metonymy in naming and semantic meaning shift and transformation
There are three major bases of associational motivation of metonymy, namely, the abstraction of the attributes / characteristics of a conceptual domain, the vertical merge and segmentation/ sub-classification of a domain, and the horizontal linkage of domain elements; there might be another relation between the source and target, namely, owner and possession; the domain covering category and concept/event frame is vague in itself; to what category the source and the target belong is determined by the knowledge network of the two concepts and the context; whether the source and the target belong to the same action event frame or not is determined by the logical structure of event frame and its elements; metonymy contains metaphor, and human evaluation is added to metaphor; a metonymy can contain more than one metonymy.
6.On the dispearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept
The extralinguistical motivations of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept are as follows: object disappearance, object classification, social context change, object development and change, human evaluation change, language community reception; the intralinguistical ones are: language economy, semantic transparency, language experiencedness, linguistic unit substitution, style/emotional/dialect coloring. The impacts of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept on the language system are as follows: the substituting and the substituted, historical word, complex semantic system, the revival of old form, potential historical word, large syntagmata, i.e. a large number of synonyms only with slight differences in style, emotional or dialect coloring; the impact of the once linguistic unit concept on the construction in which it occurrd due to its existence, i.e. helping to entrench its construction, still after the disappearance, i.e. the entrenchment and change of the construction.
基于框架、域和百科知识语义学等理论和国内着重于共时和理解的应用成果,本研究侧重历时角度对词概念框架再行定义,并以重新定义的词概念框架为视角,立足于概念的产生,探讨其语言形式表征和语义的变化转换。本研究选择猪、狗、鹰、鸡和蝇这五个动物词作为对象代表,依靠所拟构的框架,以其最初的施指为起点,通过“五个结合”即历时与共时、概念/意义与形式、词法与句法、语言与言语、聚合和组合,试图揭示后入框架概念、概念组合的产生及其形式表征的规律,框架内形式单位概念变化转换的规律,框架内形式单位参与命名框架外客体的规律,框架内语言单位概念消失的表现形式、动因及其对语言体系的影响,其间补充转喻研究的理论概括;以期探究知识/概念的本质、结构和组织,概念之间相互联系的方式,形式表征和理解概念时概念之间相互作用的方式如框架/基底与突显、预设、包含、株连,概念结构与形式结构的关系,最终补充、完善认知语义学;还期望有助于话语的建构和理解、母语和二语教学与习得效率的提高,因为它能把感觉感知经验、意象图式、文化模式、认知机制、概念产生、形义结构、聚合组合等结合在一起,构成一个连续统;从而可相互联系、相互影响、相互依存。
本研究首先尽可能广泛地搜集语料,然后忠实而全面地描写、细致入微地分析、充分而切实地解释,最后自然而系统地归纳、概括和抽象,性有量为支撑;辅之以观察、访谈、内省、比较等方法。
本研究的结果主要从以下六个方面来概括。
1、词概念框架拟构及其本体研究
共拟构了12个框架(包括子框架)。框架起点词概念与其它概念的关系大致有四种:领主与所属关系、源头与水流关系、整体与部分关系/部分与整体关系、属与种/种与属关系。五个框架的共性主要体现在概念的本质、概念链和框架形成的机制、主要内容等方面,差异性则见诸于框架元素的有无和多寡、层级的复杂程度等。词概念框架的属性有:1)知识表征模式、2)认知模式、3)涉语活动的基础,特征有:1)具众星拱月状、2)结构逻辑、3)扩张变化、4)主角为认知范畴、5)连续性与阶段性相结合。
2、后入框架概念的形式表征研究
后入框架概念形式表征的一般规律:以需表征概念的中心成分为出发点,根据交际任务和目的,依靠框架的相关部分和语境,选择视角,集聚注意力于焦点,突显某一或某些限定成分,隐略其他,使用框架内、语言中现成的单位,最大限度地遵循经济原则。限定成分的突显受到语内和语外因素的制约。语内因素包括词化程度、类推规律、概念内容、上下文、双音节化、语体等;语外因素包括民族的历史、文化、社会、经济、自然环境,体验、认知心理、世界观,语言运用的习惯,等等。具体说来,后入框架概念的语言形式表征规律有16条。
3、框架内形式单位概念的变化转换研究
形式单位概念的变化转换受以下因素的制约:人的感觉和认知能力,客观现实现象固有的、内在的、逻辑的联系。形式单位概念变化的一般动因是:人对原概念所概括的对象的接触、互动、了解、熟悉、认识、概括、抽象,以及在此基础上产生的主观认识和评价(包括褒和贬),对需要交流、思考、概括的新对象的感觉和认知,以及对两者的综合,尤其是对两者的关系或某一或某些属性相似性的确定。已被形式表征、并固化在语言体系中的原始概念,变化后仍沿用原来的形式,是以下几个因素共同作用的结果:1)便利、2)经济、3)语境与框架、4)局限。原始概念转换后仍沿用原来的形式,除了上述后三个因素在起作用外,还有一个动因即修辞;另外,文学创作还追求新奇。
按框架内形式单位概念发生变化转换的比例大小排序,依次为“鹰”、“狗”、“鸡”、“蝇”、“猪”框架。特征越显著,就越突显,也就越容易被人所关注,自然就容易作为参照的标的。
发生变化转换的简单词概念只占总数的3.17%,而其变化转换所占比例却是10.83%;动物作为整体更容易与其部分、所属或其他事物关联和比较;完形感知比部分感知容易,发散感知比纵深感知容易,完形感知后的发散或纵深思维比部分感知后的发散或纵深思维要容易。
在发生变化转换的189个形式单位概念中,最初的施指为具体事物和行为的占绝大多数;人对实体和行为事件的感觉感知比对抽象事物要容易得多,前者比后者直观而醒目、易聚人的注意力,认识起来也省力一些,形式表征也容易一些。最初施指具体事物的112个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,仍然施指具体事物的有100个次;把一个实体概念和另一个实体概念联系起来,然后隐喻或转喻要比对其进行属性或特征的概括抽象更容易更普遍。最初施指行为/状态的64个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,仍然施指行为/状态的47个次,施指具体事物的6个次,施指抽象概念的21个次;人类思维在同一水平线上(如从具体/行为/抽象到具体/行为/抽象)或同一框架的同一逻辑结构层次上运行省力一些;若要从行为/状态中抽象出属性,则需要观察、发现、分析、比较、综合、判断、推理、概括等,显然是颇费精力的;把行为/状态作为整体从中抽象出高度概括的属性比从构成行为事件的某一或某些要素当中抽象出相应的属性要困难一些;如果根据行为事件只突显构成行为事件的某一要素如施事则有违思维的习惯,难度也大得多。最初施指抽象概念的13个形式单位概念中,经变化转换后,全都仍然只施指抽象概念;人类思维的规律一般是从具体到抽象,从抽象再回到具体难度要大得多。
形式单位概念变化转换的规律涉及具体动因、机制、途径、思维。
1)具体动因
(1)功能动因。五个词概念框架经变化转换后附带感情色彩的形式单位概念所占比例都超过了60%,这证明概念、语言是体验的。
人类在表征抽象概念时较常采用具象/体表达方式,符合实现最基本的交际目的和任务的要求。
简便表达的理据主要有下面三种:一是,目的概念与原概念不属同一范畴,也不属同一事件框架,但两者在某一或某些方面具有内在的、固有的或基于人的评价的相似性;其次,目的概念是原概念的次类,类与次类相关,且具质的同一性;最后,目的概念与原概念不属同一范畴,但属同一行为事件框架,两者具有内在的、固有的相关性。三种理据的数量分别为53、8、21各占总数233的22.75%、3.43%、9.01%;不同范畴事物间的相似性比同一范畴或同一事件框架内事物之间的相关性更能驱动简便表达;汉民族似乎不大习惯于把同一范畴的事物纵向归并到上位层级范畴或进行次范畴化,是否更习惯于发散思维,还有待进一步研究;而要认知同一事件框架里元素之间的联系,尤其是位于不同逻辑结构层次上的元素之间的联系,难度也不小。这组数据在一定程度上体现了语言的经济性,同时也表明语言经济是要受一定条件制约的。
(2)发生学上的动因
①客观相关性和相似性
②基于人的认识或评价的相关性
首先,原概念是种,目的概念是类,目的概念包含原概念,具有种与类的相关性。但目的概念这个类不是现成的,是新建的,是以人的认识或评价为基础的。若没有这个基础,也就没有这个新类。
其次,原概念是领主/整体,目的概念是所属/部分,它们之间具有领主/整体与所属/部分的相关性。所属即属性或特征,是人对领主的认识或评价的结果并强加于领主;而部分也承载了人的认识或评价。
再次,原概念施指一个行为事件或行为事件框架里的一个元素,目的概念是该行为事件框架里的一个元素或另一个元素,它们之间具有事件/元素与元素的相关性。目的概念所施指的这个元素承载了人对施事的认识或/和评价。
最后,目的概念是原概念的标志或预兆,可视为领主所领有。标志或预兆什么是以人的认识或评价为基础的;若没有这个基础,也就没有标志或预兆。
③基于或牵涉到人的认识或评价的相似性
首先,原概念和目的概念之间的相似性是以人对原概念的认识或评价为基础的;若没有这个基础,它们之间也就无所谓相似。其次,原概念和目的概念之间在某一方面具有客观相似性,在此基础上,再掺入人对原概念的认识或评价。
④相似性或相关性与人的评价的结合或三者的结合
首先,相关性与人的认识/评价相结合。客观相关性是变化转换的基础,人的认识或评价只是把目的概念的范畴缩小。
其次,相似性与人的认识/评价相结合。客观相似性是转换的基础,人的认识或评价只是转换原概念的范畴。
最后,相关性、相似性与人的认识/评价三者的结合。客观相关性是变化或转换的基础,人的认识或评价则作为相似的基础,并把目的概念变为原概念的更为直接的上位层次范畴。
2)机制
(1)变化机制:出于附带感情色彩,生动、形象、具体表达,或简便表达的目的,依靠框架的相关元素,(或者)突显集聚注意力的客观相关/似性和基于或牵涉到人的主观评价的相关/似性,保留或变化中心成分,增加、减少、变化或转换某一或某些限定成分。一般说来,中心成分不变,只增加某一或某些限定成分导致概念缩小也即以类代种;中心成分不变,只减少某一或某些限定成分导致概念的扩大也即以种代类;中心成分不变,只转换并增加/减少某一或某些限定成分导致概念的平移也即在同一范畴内以一个成员代指另一个成员。不过,概念扩大也可缘起下面四种情况,共计38个,占总数60的63.33%:①中心成分变化,限定成分增加;②中心成分变化,限定成分既减少又增加;③中心成分基本不变,只减少行为施事和增加某些限定成分;④中心成分基本不变,只变化限定成分。
(2)转换机制:出于附带感情色彩,生动、形象、具体表达,或简便表达的目的,依靠框架,从某一视角,(或者)突显集聚注意力的某一方面:原概念和目的概念内在的、固有的或常规的相似性,原概念和目的概念内在的、固有的、常规的或民俗的相关性,基于或牵涉到人的主观评价的相关/似性,在此基础上保留原概念的某一或某些限定成分(有些还增加限定成分),其它的限定成分改变,中心成分也改变。
①保留限定成分即原概念和目的概念之间的相似性,包括客观相似性、夹有人对原概念比较复杂的评价或民俗认识的客观相似性和基于人对原概念的评价的主观相似性。
②保留原概念的相关部分,包括整体的部分、领主的所属、行为事件的某一要素。
3)途径
(1)变化的途径主要通过转喻,大多数是在事件框架里进行的。动物家庭/社会化程度或其本身复杂程度越高,人对其认知的广度和深度也就越高,相应地,有关概念、转喻的复杂程度也越高;而事件框架比单个的实体概念框架要复杂得多。
(2)概念转换的途径主要通过隐喻和转喻。
①通过隐喻:客观的属性或特征映射,人对原概念的评价映射,基于人对原概念评价的关系、比重、工具、作用、状态、行为结果或作为等的映射。
②通过转喻:整体代部分,领主代所属,行为事件中的一个要素代另一个要素,整个行为事件指代其间的一个要素,一个要素代整个行为事件。
在233次变化转换中,通过隐喻的有83次,占35.62%,通过转喻的有150次,占64.38%;这一结果在一定程度上支持了一些学者的推断,即在组织概念时转喻比隐喻更不可或缺。
4)思维
(1)变化的思维特征
①流线型
概念在同一范畴内的从种到类/从类到种、从部分到整体/从整体到部分、从成员到成员的向上或向下的纵向或水平线变化,思维呈流线型,可分为直线流线型和曲折流线型。
②流线-跳跃-流线型
概念先在同一范畴内从类到种、向下纵向变化,再从一范畴横向变化到另一范畴;在后一范畴,从种到类、向上纵向变化。
③连续跳跃型
概念先在同一范畴内横向变化到另一个概念,再在变化后的概念所在的(次)范畴内横向变化到另一个概念。
(2)转换的思维特征
呈跳跃性,有两种情形:单一跳跃和连续跳跃;跳跃需要跳板,跳板多种多样:整体与部分/施事与受事的相关性、基于人的评价的原概念和目的概念之间的相似性、人对原概念的评价或认识、人对原概念属性的抽象、行为事件框架、人对框架元素的评价、人对框架元素的概括。
4、框架内形式单位参与命名框架外事物的研究
框架内形式单位参与命名框架外事物的机制可概括为:主要基于其施指与需命名事物之间的相似/关性,以及它与所突显的成分之间的相关性,依靠框架,通过隐喻或转喻,转换外延,丰富内涵,经济简洁。有框架内形式单位参与的整个合成通名形式上是定中式,概念/语义上是主题述谓结构;述谓的方式很少是直陈的,大都是隐/转喻的。述谓与主题组合的理据主要有两种即相似性和相关性。基于相似性,述谓通过隐喻对主题进行陈述;基于相关性,述谓通过转喻对主题进行陈述。通名可略去中心成分,表现为转喻,即部分代整体。貌似非常简单的限定成分实则是个转喻,而且种类颇多。
5、命名和语义变换中的转喻研究
转喻的关联动因有三大基础,即域的属性/特征抽象、域的纵向归并与次/切分和域元素的横向联系。原概念与目的概念之间还可能有一种关系即领主与所属。囊括范畴、概念、事件框架的域具有模糊性;原概念与目的概念属于哪一个范畴是由关于这两个概念的知识网络和语境来确定的,而凭借行为事件框架的逻辑结构及其元素则一般可确定原概念和目的概念是否属同一行为事件框架。转喻包含隐喻,而隐喻又掺入人的评价。一个转喻可内包一个以上的转喻。
6、框架内语言单位概念消失的研究
框架内语言单位概念消失的语外动因有:客体的消亡、客体的分类、社会大背景的改变、客体的发展变化、人的评价改变、语言社区的确认;语内动因有:语言的经济性、语义的显性度、语言的体验性、词语的替代、语体色彩、感情色彩、方言色彩。语言单位概念消失后,给语言体系带来的影响如下:词语的交替、历史词语、复杂的语义系统、旧形复活、潜在的历史词语、庞大的聚合系统即大量的只具有诸如语体色彩、感情色彩或方言色彩这样细微差别的同义词语;曾经的语言单位概念因其存在对其所在的语言结构式就产生了影响即有助于其固化,消失后影响仍在,即构式的固化与变化。
From the very beginning of human thought, expression and communication, language has been internalized in the brain. Before its study, there was no theorietical system of language; even after the beginning, a relatively complete system of language had not been able to build up because it was part of philosophy, rhetoric or literature within a long period of time in the history. Until the early 19th century was it initially completed. Although the study is mainly descriptive only, it is the first ground-breaking achievement, which is the inherent, intrinsic and central part of the scientific study of language. Modern liguistics, from the post-Saussurean structural linguistics, to formal linguistics, to systematical-functional linguistics, originating from the London School, and then to nowaday's cognitive linguistics, along the way, has been constantly complementing, improving and developing the study of language system, and they differ only in the philosophical foundation, perspective, method, or goal. Previous research results are the bases of posterior studies, and the progress in the study is not to negate previous research results, but to complement and improve. Both the pre-Saussurean language research and modern linguistics have contributed to the healthy development of linguistics, and although different in size, they each have its own historical significance. So far, it has not been able to be convincingly explained yet how a concept is at first attached to a simple linguistic form, that is, how the most basic and simple language units are produced. Since Saussure, the study, on the supposition of language arbitrariness, has been mainly aiming at the language system consisting of the most basic and simple units, focusing on description, analysis and explanation. The object of this study is still this system, and it still focuses on description and explanation. What is slightly different is perspective change and goal pursuit. There is a variety of perspectives, which are not in itself right or wrong, but the results of which may vary, such as to see the more or the less, the full or the one-sided, the far or the near, the new or the old, etc.. For the standards of scientific research, language study should pay particular attention to the following aspects: to rely on, respect and conform to the fact; the theoretical foundation of description and explanation to be unitary and frontier; the description and explanation to be faithful, adequate and comprehensive; the theoretical generalization to be natural, logical, and systematical; fact and theory, theory and application, application and the fact to be interrelated, interactional and interdependent. It seems more likely to be close to the above criteria to study the linguistic representation of concept and the shift and transformation of semantic meaning from the perspective of lexical concept frame. Moreover, this attempt has so far not been made a lot, especially based on the diachronic lexical concept frame.
Based on frame semantics, domain theory and encyclopedic semantics, etc. and on the results of the application of the above theories at home focusing on synchrony and understanding, this study re-defines lexical concept frame more from the perspective of diachrony, and starting from the formation of concept, addresses its linguistic representation and semantic meaning shift and transformation from the perspective of re-defined lexical concept frame. This study chooses the five animal words猪,狗,鹰,鸡and蝇as object representatives, and relying on the simulated animal word frames, with their first referents as a starting point, through the‘5 combinations’(i.e. diachrony and synchrony, concept / meaning and form, morphology and syntax, language and utterance, paradigm and syntagm), attempts to reveal the laws of the formation of concept and conceptual combination entering the frame after the starting-point lexical concept and their linguistic representation, the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit concept and the use of in-frame linguistic unit as the secondary material to name outside-frame object, and the forms of and the causes for the disappearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept and its effects on the language system, and complements the theoretical generalization of the previous research on metonymy. It is to be wished to investigate the nature, structure and organization of knowledge/concept, the way in which concepts are correlated to, and the way in which concepts interact upon each other when they are represented and understood in discourse; and it is also to be wished to help learners with the construction and understanding of discourse, and the increase of the efficiency of the mother tongue and second/foreign language teaching and acquisition, due to the organization of sensational and perceptional experience, image schema, cultural model, cognitive mechanism, concept formation, the structures of form and meaning, and paradigm and syntagm, thus constructing a continuum, the elements of which can be interrelated to, interacted and interdepend upon.
This study holds the naturalist attitude: first of all, collecting data as widely as possible; and then, faithfully and comprehensively describing, painstakingly analyzing, adequately and realistically explaining; finally, naturally and systematically generalizing and abstracting, with quantity supporting quality; to be complemented by observation, interview, introspection, comparison and other methods.
The results of this study are as follows.
1.On lexical concept frame itself
Twelve frames, including subframes, are simulated altogether. There are generally four types of relations between the starting-point lexical concept and others within a frame: owner and possession, source and flow, whole and part/part and whole, genus and species. The commonalities of the five frames are mainly embodied in the nature of concept, the formation mechanisms of concept chain and frame, while the differences are mainly found in the existence or nonexistence and more or less of frame element and the complexity of frame hierarchy. The properties of lexical concept frame are as follows: (1) Knowledge representation model, (2) cognitive model, and (3) the foundation of language involved activities; the characteristics are as follows: (1)the starting-point lexical concept as the center with many other ones around it, (2) logical structure, (3) expansion and change, (4) cognitive category as the major role, and (5 ) the combination of continuity and stage.
2.On the representation of the concept into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept
The general rules of the representation of the concepts into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept are as follows: taking the central element of the concept needed to be represented as the starting point, according to the task and purpose of communication, and relying on the relevant parts of the frame and the context, one selects the perspective, concentrates his attention upon the focus, highlights one or more definite elements and hides the others, uses the present language units within the frame, maximumly following the economic principle; the prominence of definite elements is controlled by intralingual and extralingual factors; the former includes the degree of lexicalization, the law of analogy , the content of concept, context, dissyllabication, stylistics, etc.; the latter includes national history, society, culture, economy, natural environment, experience, cognitive psychology, world outlook, language use habits, etc.. Specifically, there are 16 rules omitted here.
3.On the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit concept
The shift and transformation of linguistic unit concept is subject to the following factors: human sensational and cognitive ability, the intrinsic, inherent and logical correlation of objective realities and phenomena. The general motivations of the shift of linguistic unit concept are as follows: human contact, interaction, understanding, familiarity, cognition, generalization and abstraction of the object represented by the source concept, and subjective understanding and evaluation (including commendation and derogation) based on the above, and the sensation and perception of the new object needed to be pondered, generalized, and communicated, and the synthesis of the two, in particular the determination of the relation between the two, or a certain/some similar properties. It is the result of acting together of the following factors: (1) convenience, (2) economy, (3) context and frame, and (4) limitations that the shifted primitive concept, which has been represented by the linguistic unit and entrenched in language, could be represented by the original linguistic unit; the use of the original linguistic unit to represent the transformed primitive concept is motivated by rhetoric as well as the above-mentioned three factors; in addition, literature creation seeks novelty.
The order made in accordance with the proportion of the shift and transformation of linguistic unit concepts is as follows,“鹰”,“狗”,“鸡”,“蝇”, and“猪”frame. The more conspicuous the characteristics of an object are, the more prominent it is, also the easier it will be to attract human attention, naturally becoming a reference point more easily.
Shifted/transformed simple word concepts amount to only 3.17%of the total, while their shifts and transformations make up 10.83%; an animal as a whole is much easier to be associated and compared with its part and possession or other objects; gestalt perception is easier than part perception, and divergence perception is easier than depth perception; divergence or depth thinking after gestalt perception is easier than that after part perception.
Absolutely most out of the 189 shifted/transformed linguistic unit concepts refer to the concrete things and action events, the perception of which is much easier than that of abstract things, because the former is more directly perceived and conspicuous than the latter, so attracting human attention more easily, and easier to understand and represent in language. 100 out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are concrete things still refer to concrete things after shift/transformation; it is much easier and more common to associate one concept of a concrete thing with another and then to make a metaphor or metonymy of it than to generalize and abstract its attributes or characteristics. Out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are actions/states, 47 still refer to actions/states, 6 to concrete things, 21 to abstract things, after shift/transformation; it is labor-saving for human thinking to run at the same level (for example, from the concrete/actions/the abstract to the concrete/ actions/the abstract) or the same logical level of a frame. It is obviously energy-consuming to abstract attributes from actions/states, due to observation, discovery, analysis, comparison and synthesis, judgement, inference, generalization, and so on; it is more difficult to abstract highly-generalized attributes from the action / state as a whole than from one or more elements of an action event; it is contrary to the habit of thinking and also much more difficult to highlight a certain element, such as agent , upon the action event. The 13 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are abstract things still refer to abstract things after shift/transformation; the general law of human thinking is from the concrete to the abstract, so it is much more difficult to go back to the concrete from the abstract.
The laws of linguistic unit concept shift and transformation involves specific cause, mechanism, approach, and thinking.
(1) Specific causes
①Functional motivations
In all the five animal word frames, the percentage of linguistic unit concepts with emotional facet attached is more than 60, which proves that both concept and language are experienced.
It meets the need to achieve the most basic objectives and tasks of a communication that imageable and embodymental expressions are more commonly used when abstract concepts are talked about.
There are mainly three motivations of simple expression: first, the target and source concept do not belong to the same category, nor the same action event frame, but have the inherent and intrinsic similarity or the one based on human evaluation in one or two aspects; secondly, the target is a sub-category of the source, and categories and sub-categories are relative and have the identity of quality; finally, the target and the source do not belong to the same category, but the same action event frame, and have the inherent and intrinsic relativity. The number of three motivations is respectively as follows: 53, 8, 21, accounting for 22.75%, 3.43%, 9.01% of the total number of 233; the similarity between objects in different categories is more able to motivate simple expression than the relativity of members/elements in the same category/action event frame; it seems that the Han people is not quite accustomed to incorporating vertically the objects of the same category into a superordinate category or subcategorization; whether we are more accustomed to divergent thinking awaits further research; actually, it is also difficult to discover the relations of the elements in the same action event frame, especially those of the elements at the different logical levels. This set of data, to some extent, reflects the economy of language, at the same time shows that it is subject to certain conditions.
②Genetic motivations
(a) Objective relativity and similarity
(b) Relativity based on human understanding/evaluation
First of all, the source concept is species, the target is genus, the latter includes the former, and between them there is the relativity of species and genus; however, the target, i.e. a genus, is not present, but newly constructed, based on human understanding/evaluation; without this basis, this new genus does not exist.
Secondly, the source refers to an owner/ a whole, the target refers to its possession/ part, and between them there is the relativity of owner/whole and possession/part; possessions mainly are the owner’s attributes or characteristics, which are the results of human understanding/evaluation of the owner and then imposition on it; the part also carries human understanding/assessment.
Thirdly, the source refers to an action event/ an element of an action event frame, the target refers to an element in the frame/another element, and between them there is relativity of event/element and element/ element; the element referred to by the target carries human understanding or /and evaluation.
Finally, the target is a sign or omen of the source, which can be regarded as owned by the source; the sign or omen is based upon human understanding/evaluation; without the foundation, there is no sign or omen.
(c) Similarity based on or related to human understanding/evaluation
For one thing, the similarity between the source and target concept is based on human understanding/evaluation of the source; without this basis, there is no similarity. For another, there is an objective similarity between the source and target concept, on the basis of which human understanding/evaluation is added to.
(d) the combination of similarity/ relativity and human evaluation or the combination of similarity, relativity and human evaluation
First of all, the combination of relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift and transformation, and human understanding/evaluation narrows the category of the source concept. Second, the combination of similarity and human understanding/evaluation; objective similarity is the basis of shift, and human understanding/evaluation transforms the category of the source. Finally, the combination of similarity, relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift or transformation, and human understanding/evaluation is the basis of similarity and changes the target into a more direct superordinate category of the source.
(2) Mechanisms
①Shift mechanism: relying on relevant elements in the frame,(or) highlighting the objective relativity / similarity, which gathers human attention, and relativity / similarity based on human subjective evaluation, the central component is retained or shifted, and definite components are increased, decreased, or shifted/transformed for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, embodimental, or simple expression. Generally speaking, if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are increased, the concept is narrowed, i.e. genus for species; if the central element remains unchanged, and only one or some definite elements are reduced, the concept is enlarged, i.e. species for genus; if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are transformed and increased/decreased, the concept is translated, i.e. one member for another in the same category. However, the concept can be expanded duo to the following four cases, for a total of 38, accounting for 63.33 percent of the total 60: (a) the central component shifts, and definite components increase; (b) the central component shifts, and definite components not only reduce but also increase; (c) the central component is essentially the same, and only the action agent reduces and certain definite components increase; (d) the central component is essentially the same, only definite components shift.
②Transformation mechanism: relying on the frame, (or) from a certain perspective highlighting a certain aspect which gathers human attention: the intrinsic, inherent or conventional similarity/ relativity of the source and target concept, similarity/ relativity based on or related to human subjective evaluation, and on this basis, a certain/some definite components of the source concept are retained (sometimes definite components are increased), the others are shifted, and the central component is also shifted, for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, specific, or simple expression.
(a) Retaining definite components, i.e. the similarity between the source and target concept, including the objective, the objective with comparatively complex human evaluation or folk understanding added to, and the subjective based on human evaluation.
(b) A relevant part of the source concept has been retained as the target concept, including a part of the whole, a possession of the owner, a certain element of the action event frame.
(3) Channels
①Shifts are mainly through metonymy, most of which are carried out in event frames. The higher the degree of the domesticalization/socialization of an animal or the complexity of its own is, the higher the breadth and depth of human knowledge is, accordingly, also the higher the level of complexity of the relevant concept and metonymy is; the event frame is much more complex than the single physical object concept frame.
②Transformations are mainly through metaphor and metonymy.
(a) Through metaphor: the mapping of objective attributes or characteristics, of the human evaluation of the source, and of the relation, proportion, use, state, result, etc. based on human evaluation of the source.
(b) Through metonymy: part for whole, owner for possession, one element for another element in the action event frame, the whole action event for an element, and an element for the whole action event.
In 233 shifts and transformations, the number of those through metaphor is 83, accounting for 35.62 percent, and the number of those through metonymy is 150, accounting for 64.38%; this result, to some extent, supports the suggestion of some scholars that metonymy may be more fundamental to conceptual organization than metaphor.
(4) Thinking
①The characteristics of thinking in shift
(a) Streamlined
When linguistic unit concepts shift from species/ genus to genus/ species, from part/ whole to whole/part, from member to member within the same category (upwardly/downwardly vertically or horizontally), thinking is streamlined, which can be divided into straightly and tortuously streamlined.
(b) Streamlined-leaping-streamlined
The concept shifts from genus to species within the same category (downwardly vertically), and then from one category to another (horizontally); in the latter category, it shifts from species to genus (upwardly vertically).
(c) Continuous leap
One concept shifts horizontally to another within the same category, and then horizontally to third in the (sub) category to which the shifted concept belongs.
②The characteristics of thinking in transformation
Thinking in transformation is leaping, and there are two cases: a single leap and leaping straight; leap needs springboards which is various: the relativity of whole and part/agent and patient, the similarity between the source and the target based upon human evaluation, human evaluation/understanding of the source, human abstraction of the attributes of the source, action event frame, human evaluation/ generalization of frame element.
4.On the use of in-frame linguistic units as minor naming materials for out-frame objects
The mechanism of naming things outside the frame with in-frame linguistic units involved can be summarized as follows: mainly on the basis of the similarity/ relativity of the unit’s referent and the thing to be named, and the relativity between the unit and its highlighted component, relying on the frame, through metaphor or metonymy, the extension is transformed, and the connotation is enriched, economical and simple.
The linguistic structure of the composite common name with the in-frame linguistic unit involved is the definite plus the central, its conceptual/semantic structure is the theme plus the predication. The predication is seldom declarative, but metaphorical/metonymical. There are two motivations of the combination of the theme and the predicate, i.e. similarity and relativity. Based on similarity, the predicate declares the theme through metaphor, while based on relativity, through metonymy. The central element of the name can be omitted, resulting in a metonymy, i.e. part for whole. The seemingly simple definite actually is a metonymy, with various forms.
5.On metonymy in naming and semantic meaning shift and transformation
There are three major bases of associational motivation of metonymy, namely, the abstraction of the attributes / characteristics of a conceptual domain, the vertical merge and segmentation/ sub-classification of a domain, and the horizontal linkage of domain elements; there might be another relation between the source and target, namely, owner and possession; the domain covering category and concept/event frame is vague in itself; to what category the source and the target belong is determined by the knowledge network of the two concepts and the context; whether the source and the target belong to the same action event frame or not is determined by the logical structure of event frame and its elements; metonymy contains metaphor, and human evaluation is added to metaphor; a metonymy can contain more than one metonymy.
6.On the dispearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept
The extralinguistical motivations of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept are as follows: object disappearance, object classification, social context change, object development and change, human evaluation change, language community reception; the intralinguistical ones are: language economy, semantic transparency, language experiencedness, linguistic unit substitution, style/emotional/dialect coloring. The impacts of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept on the language system are as follows: the substituting and the substituted, historical word, complex semantic system, the revival of old form, potential historical word, large syntagmata, i.e. a large number of synonyms only with slight differences in style, emotional or dialect coloring; the impact of the once linguistic unit concept on the construction in which it occurrd due to its existence, i.e. helping to entrench its construction, still after the disappearance, i.e. the entrenchment and change of the construction.
引文
[1] Barsalou, Lawrence. 1992a. Frames, concepts and conceptual fields[A]. In A. Lehrer and E. Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fieldss and Contrasts [C].Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 21-74.
[2] Barsalou, Lawrence. 1992b. Cognitive Psycholgy: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[3] Bierwiaczonek, Boguslaw.2005.On the neural and conceptual basis of semantic relations[A]. In Górska, Elzbieta &Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy-Metaphor Collage[C].Warsaw: Warsaw University Press,11-36.
[4] Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge University Press.
[5] Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh University Press.
[6] Fillmore, Charles and Beryl T. Atkins. 2000.Desciping polysemy: the case of crawl[A]. In Ravin and Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-110.
[7] Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics[A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm[C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 111-37.
[8] Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. [M]. Standford, CA: Standford University Press.
[9] Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Li, Penny and Lilia Gleitman. 2002.Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning [J]. Cognition, (83), 265-94.
[11] Panther, Klause-Uwe. 2006.Metonymy as a usage event[A]. In Kristiansen, Gitte & Michel Achard, et al (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-155.
[12] Sinclair, JM. Collins English Dictionary (21st Century Edition) [Z].HarperCollins Publishers, 2000.
[13] Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation[A]. In Berkeley Linguistic Society (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C].Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 480-519.
[14] Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.[M] Oxford University Press.
[15]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H.J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M].London: Addison Welsey.
[16]曹聪孙,1999,论词语消亡的时代性维度,《语文建设》第2期,91-4页。
[17]陈嘉映,2003,《语言哲学》。北京:北京大学出版社。
[18]成善祯,2003,框架语义信息与语用等效,《苏州大学学报(社会科学版)》第4期,72-74页。
[19]程琪龙,2003,”领有”事件框架及其语法体现,《外语与外语教学》第4期,1-4页。
[20]程琪龙,2005,谓元语义结构概念框架,《外国语》第5期,10-16页。
[21]程琪龙,2006,《概念框架和认知》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[22]冯志伟,2006,从格语法到框架网络,《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期,1-9页。
[23]韩晓玲和陈中华,2003,框架理论及其在话语分析中的应用,《外语与外语教学》,第9期,1-3页。
[24]李亚明,2003,语言的休眠、复苏与新陈代谢,《外语研究》第2期,5-8页。
[25]廖光蓉,2000,英汉文化动物词对比研究,《外国语》第5期,17-26页。
[26]廖光蓉,2007,语言简洁性的词概念框架基础,《外语与外语教学》,第11期,12-15页。
[27]廖光蓉,2008,词概念框架研究提纲,《外语教学》,第6期,38-42页。
[28]廖光蓉,2009,框架语义的变化与转换:“狗”的个案研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期,1-7页。
[29]廖光蓉,2009,词概念框架的拟构及属性与特征,《外语与外语教学》,第5期,5-10页。
[30]罗竹风,1990,《汉语大词典》。上海:汉语大词典出版社。
[31]马清华,2000,《文化语义学》。南昌:江西人民出版社。
[32]潘艳艳,2003,框架语义学:理论与应用,《外语研究》第5期,14-18页。
[33]钱德明和周庆芳,2005,《苏州教育学院学报(社会科学版)》第2期,59-63页。
[34]邵志洪,2006,英汉运动事件框架表达对比与应用,《外国语》第2期,33-40页。
[35]束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M]。上海:外语教育出版社。
[36]田兵,2003,多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野——探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式(一),《现代外语》第4期,340-350页。
[37]余志鸿,1999,新旧词语交替的文化信息,《语文建设》第4期,53-5页。
[38]张建理,2005,因果事件框架理论对动词的解释,《外语与外语教学》,第12期,6-7页。
[39]张晴,2007,过去十年间汉语消亡名词的社会语言学分析,《文教资料》第19期,98-9页。
[40]赵霞,2006,作格结构及其概念框架分析,《外语与外语教学》第6期,10-13页。
[41]郅友昌,赵亮和杨丽芳,2008,俄罗斯认知研究中的概念分析,《外语教学》,第6期,19-22页。
[42]中国社科院语言研究所词典编辑室,1983,《现代汉语词典》(第二版)。北京:商务印书馆。
[43]钟守满,2001,语义框架、场及其相互关系,《外语与外语教学》第11期,1-3页。
[2] Barsalou, Lawrence. 1992b. Cognitive Psycholgy: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[3] Bierwiaczonek, Boguslaw.2005.On the neural and conceptual basis of semantic relations[A]. In Górska, Elzbieta &Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy-Metaphor Collage[C].Warsaw: Warsaw University Press,11-36.
[4] Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge University Press.
[5] Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh University Press.
[6] Fillmore, Charles and Beryl T. Atkins. 2000.Desciping polysemy: the case of crawl[A]. In Ravin and Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-110.
[7] Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics[A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm[C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 111-37.
[8] Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. [M]. Standford, CA: Standford University Press.
[9] Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Li, Penny and Lilia Gleitman. 2002.Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning [J]. Cognition, (83), 265-94.
[11] Panther, Klause-Uwe. 2006.Metonymy as a usage event[A]. In Kristiansen, Gitte & Michel Achard, et al (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-155.
[12] Sinclair, JM. Collins English Dictionary (21st Century Edition) [Z].HarperCollins Publishers, 2000.
[13] Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation[A]. In Berkeley Linguistic Society (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society[C].Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 480-519.
[14] Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.[M] Oxford University Press.
[15]Ungerer, F.& Schmid, H.J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M].London: Addison Welsey.
[16]曹聪孙,1999,论词语消亡的时代性维度,《语文建设》第2期,91-4页。
[17]陈嘉映,2003,《语言哲学》。北京:北京大学出版社。
[18]成善祯,2003,框架语义信息与语用等效,《苏州大学学报(社会科学版)》第4期,72-74页。
[19]程琪龙,2003,”领有”事件框架及其语法体现,《外语与外语教学》第4期,1-4页。
[20]程琪龙,2005,谓元语义结构概念框架,《外国语》第5期,10-16页。
[21]程琪龙,2006,《概念框架和认知》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[22]冯志伟,2006,从格语法到框架网络,《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期,1-9页。
[23]韩晓玲和陈中华,2003,框架理论及其在话语分析中的应用,《外语与外语教学》,第9期,1-3页。
[24]李亚明,2003,语言的休眠、复苏与新陈代谢,《外语研究》第2期,5-8页。
[25]廖光蓉,2000,英汉文化动物词对比研究,《外国语》第5期,17-26页。
[26]廖光蓉,2007,语言简洁性的词概念框架基础,《外语与外语教学》,第11期,12-15页。
[27]廖光蓉,2008,词概念框架研究提纲,《外语教学》,第6期,38-42页。
[28]廖光蓉,2009,框架语义的变化与转换:“狗”的个案研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期,1-7页。
[29]廖光蓉,2009,词概念框架的拟构及属性与特征,《外语与外语教学》,第5期,5-10页。
[30]罗竹风,1990,《汉语大词典》。上海:汉语大词典出版社。
[31]马清华,2000,《文化语义学》。南昌:江西人民出版社。
[32]潘艳艳,2003,框架语义学:理论与应用,《外语研究》第5期,14-18页。
[33]钱德明和周庆芳,2005,《苏州教育学院学报(社会科学版)》第2期,59-63页。
[34]邵志洪,2006,英汉运动事件框架表达对比与应用,《外国语》第2期,33-40页。
[35]束定芳,2000,隐喻学研究[M]。上海:外语教育出版社。
[36]田兵,2003,多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野——探索多义词义项划分和释义的认知语言学模式(一),《现代外语》第4期,340-350页。
[37]余志鸿,1999,新旧词语交替的文化信息,《语文建设》第4期,53-5页。
[38]张建理,2005,因果事件框架理论对动词的解释,《外语与外语教学》,第12期,6-7页。
[39]张晴,2007,过去十年间汉语消亡名词的社会语言学分析,《文教资料》第19期,98-9页。
[40]赵霞,2006,作格结构及其概念框架分析,《外语与外语教学》第6期,10-13页。
[41]郅友昌,赵亮和杨丽芳,2008,俄罗斯认知研究中的概念分析,《外语教学》,第6期,19-22页。
[42]中国社科院语言研究所词典编辑室,1983,《现代汉语词典》(第二版)。北京:商务印书馆。
[43]钟守满,2001,语义框架、场及其相互关系,《外语与外语教学》第11期,1-3页。