从语法隐喻的角度分析《雾都孤儿》原著和简写本的差异
|
摘要
早在古希腊时期，亚里士多德和柏拉图学派就开始了对于隐喻的研究。到了20世纪六十年代，西方学术界又掀起一股新的研究热潮。当代隐喻理论粗略划分成非构建主义和建构主义两大阵营(见奥托尼1979)。而以上对隐喻学的研究还都是局限在词汇层面。系统功能语言学的建立者韩礼德最初提出了语法隐喻的概念。他认为研究意义表达的不同变体不应只从词汇层面，而应从词汇语法层面。语法隐喻包括词汇隐喻。韩礼德将语法隐喻分为概念语法隐喻和人际语法隐喻两类。
本文将以韩礼德德语法隐喻为理论框架，从概念语法隐喻和人际语法隐喻两个方面对《雾都孤儿》的原著和简写本进行对比研究。虽然文学作品的原著和简写本之间有很多不同之处，但是在基本意义的表达上，简写本始终应该“忠实”于原著。那么在一部小说的原著和简写本对照中，我们必然会发现所代表意义不同的变体的存在，一个是语法隐喻，一个是其相对应的一致式。本文研究目的是分析语法隐喻被大量运用于原著，而一致式更多地出现在简写本的原因，说明语法隐喻和一致式在不同文本中的不同作用及在英语学习中的启示。
The study of metaphor was initially discussed by Aristotelians and Platonists in ancientGreek and a new upsurge was pushed forward by western scholars in1960s. In contemporarytheories of metaphor, there are mainly two schools, namely non-constructivism andconstructivism (see Ortony1979). However, all the studies above on metaphor are limited onlexical level. The theoretical concept of grammatical metaphor is first put forward by M.A.K.Halliday, the founder of systemic-functional grammar. He proposes that we should look atvariations in the expression of meanings not only on lexical level but also on lexicogramaticallevel. Grammatical metaphor includes the lexical metaphor. He also classifies grammaticalmetaphor into two kinds: ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor.
This thesis will be based on Halliday’s theory of grammatical metaphor to make acomparative analysis of the original version and simplified version of Oliver Twist from theperspective of ideational and interpersonal metaphor. Though there are differences between theoriginal version and the simplified version of a literary work, the simplified version shouldalways be ‘faithful’ to the original one in terms of the basic meaning of the literary work.Therefore, a comparison of the two versions can surely reveal us different variations of therepresentational meaning: One is grammatical metaphor and the other is the correspondingcongruent form. The author of the thesis aims to dig out the reasons why grammatical metaphorsare frequently employed in the language of the original version and why congruent forms aremore often used in the simplified version and elaborate different functions of the two forms indifferent versions and the enlightment in English study.
本文将以韩礼德德语法隐喻为理论框架，从概念语法隐喻和人际语法隐喻两个方面对《雾都孤儿》的原著和简写本进行对比研究。虽然文学作品的原著和简写本之间有很多不同之处，但是在基本意义的表达上，简写本始终应该“忠实”于原著。那么在一部小说的原著和简写本对照中，我们必然会发现所代表意义不同的变体的存在，一个是语法隐喻，一个是其相对应的一致式。本文研究目的是分析语法隐喻被大量运用于原著，而一致式更多地出现在简写本的原因，说明语法隐喻和一致式在不同文本中的不同作用及在英语学习中的启示。
The study of metaphor was initially discussed by Aristotelians and Platonists in ancientGreek and a new upsurge was pushed forward by western scholars in1960s. In contemporarytheories of metaphor, there are mainly two schools, namely non-constructivism andconstructivism (see Ortony1979). However, all the studies above on metaphor are limited onlexical level. The theoretical concept of grammatical metaphor is first put forward by M.A.K.Halliday, the founder of systemic-functional grammar. He proposes that we should look atvariations in the expression of meanings not only on lexical level but also on lexicogramaticallevel. Grammatical metaphor includes the lexical metaphor. He also classifies grammaticalmetaphor into two kinds: ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor.
This thesis will be based on Halliday’s theory of grammatical metaphor to make acomparative analysis of the original version and simplified version of Oliver Twist from theperspective of ideational and interpersonal metaphor. Though there are differences between theoriginal version and the simplified version of a literary work, the simplified version shouldalways be ‘faithful’ to the original one in terms of the basic meaning of the literary work.Therefore, a comparison of the two versions can surely reveal us different variations of therepresentational meaning: One is grammatical metaphor and the other is the correspondingcongruent form. The author of the thesis aims to dig out the reasons why grammatical metaphorsare frequently employed in the language of the original version and why congruent forms aremore often used in the simplified version and elaborate different functions of the two forms indifferent versions and the enlightment in English study.
引文
[1] Alford, J. The grammatical metaphor: A survey of its use in the Middle Ages. Speculum,1982:728-760
[2] Aristotle in23Volumes, Vol.23, translated by W.H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA,
[3] Givon,T. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax[A].//Haiman, J.(ed.)Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1985:187-219.
[4] Goatly,A. The Language of Metaphor[M]. London and New York: Routledge,1998
[5] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in aSocial-semiotic Perspective [M]. Victoria, Australia; Deakin University Press.,1985.
[6] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to functional grammar(2nded.)[M]. London: EdwardArnold,1994[1985].
[7] Halliday, M.A.K.&J.R. Martin. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power [M].London and Washington, DC: Falmer,1993.
[8] Halliday, M.A.K.1995. Language and The Reshaping of Human Experience [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter1.
[9] Halliday, M.A.K. On Grammar and Grammatics [A]//Hasan, R., Cloran, C.&Butt,D.G.(eds.) Functional Description: Theory and Practice[C]. Amsterdam John Benjamins,1996:1-38
[10] Halliday, M.A.K.1998. Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as TechnicalKnowledge [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: PekingUniversity Press,2007: Chapter2.
[11] Halliday, M.A.K.1998. Language and Knowledge：The “unpacking” of Text[A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter3.
[12] Halliday, M.A.K.1999. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: TheFraming of The English Clause [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language ofScience[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter4.
[13] Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Construing Experience through meaning: ALanguage-based Approach to Cognitive [M]. London and New York: Casell,1999.
[14] Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rded.)[M]. London: Edward Arnold,2004.
[15] Halliday, M.A.K. The Language of Science [C].Beijing: Beijing University Press,2007.
[16] Hawkes, T. Metaphor [M]. New York: Mathuen&Co., Ltd,1980.
[17] Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
[18] Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By [C].IL: University of Chicago Press,1980: Chapters1–3:3–13
[19] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about themind.[M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
[20] Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]//In Orthony, A ed, Metaphorand Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[21] Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I.：Theoretic Prerequisites [M].Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.,1987.
[22] Martin, J.R.1991. Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge andscaffolding text. In E.Ventola(Ed.). Trends in linguistics: Functional and systemiclinguistics:307-337. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[23] Martin, J.R. English Text: System and Structure[M]. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,1992.
[24] Martin, J.R.&R. Veel. Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives onDiscourses of Science [M]. London: Routledge,1997.
[25] Mattiessen, C.1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction[A]//M. Davies&L.Ravelli(eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice [C]. NewYork: Pinter
[26] Orthony, A.(ed.).1979[1993]. Language and Thought [C].(2nded.) Cambrige: CambridgeUniversity Press.
[27] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor (trans. By R. Czerny with K. McLaughlin and J.Costello)[M]. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd,1977/1986.
[28] Taylor, T.J. Language constructing Language: The implications of reflexivity forlinguistic theory [J]. Language Sciences,2000(1):483-499.
[29] Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar.(2nded.) London: Hodder Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
[30]范文芳(Fan Wenfang).《英语语气隐喻》[J].《外国语》，2000，（4）：29-34.
[31]范文芳(Fan Wenfang).《语法隐喻理论研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
[32]胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄（Hu Zhuanglin, Zhu Yongsheg, Zhang Delu）.《系统功能语法概论》[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社，1989.
[33]胡壮麟(Hu Zhuanglin).语法隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》，1996，（4）：1-7
[34]胡壮麟（Hu Zhuanglin）.评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J],《外语教学与研究》，2000，（2）：88-94
[35]李国庆(Li Guoqing).韩礼德语气隐喻理论：分析桑提亚哥与曼诺林之间的关系[J],《四川外语学院学报》，2001，（4）：80-82.
[36]李瑞芳，孟令新（Li Ruifang, Meng Lingxin）.第二语言学习中语法隐喻对语言输入的影响[J]，《外语教学》，2004，（3）：79-82
[37]刘承宇（Liu Chengyu）.语法隐喻的文体价值[J]，《现代外语》，2003，（2）：120-127
[38].严世清(Yan Shiqing).语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义[J],《外国语》，2003，（3）：51-57
[39]杨才英(Yang Caiying).语气隐喻：言语功能扩展的机制[J],《外语研究》，2006，（3）：1-5
[40]曾蕾(Zeng Lei).从语法隐喻理论视角看学术语篇中的“投射”.[J],《外语学刊》，2007，（3）：46-49
[41]朱永生，严世清(Zhu Yongsheng, Yan Shiqing).语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献[J],《外语教学与研究》，2000，（2）：95-102.
[42]朱永生（Zhu Yongsheng）.名词化、动词化和语法隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》，2006，（2）：83-90.
[2] Aristotle in23Volumes, Vol.23, translated by W.H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA,
[3] Givon,T. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax[A].//Haiman, J.(ed.)Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1985:187-219.
[4] Goatly,A. The Language of Metaphor[M]. London and New York: Routledge,1998
[5] Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in aSocial-semiotic Perspective [M]. Victoria, Australia; Deakin University Press.,1985.
[6] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to functional grammar(2nded.)[M]. London: EdwardArnold,1994[1985].
[7] Halliday, M.A.K.&J.R. Martin. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power [M].London and Washington, DC: Falmer,1993.
[8] Halliday, M.A.K.1995. Language and The Reshaping of Human Experience [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter1.
[9] Halliday, M.A.K. On Grammar and Grammatics [A]//Hasan, R., Cloran, C.&Butt,D.G.(eds.) Functional Description: Theory and Practice[C]. Amsterdam John Benjamins,1996:1-38
[10] Halliday, M.A.K.1998. Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as TechnicalKnowledge [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: PekingUniversity Press,2007: Chapter2.
[11] Halliday, M.A.K.1998. Language and Knowledge：The “unpacking” of Text[A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language of Science[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter3.
[12] Halliday, M.A.K.1999. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: TheFraming of The English Clause [A]//Jonathan J.Webster (eds.) The Language ofScience[C]. Beijing: Peking University Press,2007: Chapter4.
[13] Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Construing Experience through meaning: ALanguage-based Approach to Cognitive [M]. London and New York: Casell,1999.
[14] Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rded.)[M]. London: Edward Arnold,2004.
[15] Halliday, M.A.K. The Language of Science [C].Beijing: Beijing University Press,2007.
[16] Hawkes, T. Metaphor [M]. New York: Mathuen&Co., Ltd,1980.
[17] Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
[18] Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By [C].IL: University of Chicago Press,1980: Chapters1–3:3–13
[19] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about themind.[M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987.
[20] Lakoff, George. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]//In Orthony, A ed, Metaphorand Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[21] Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I.：Theoretic Prerequisites [M].Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.,1987.
[22] Martin, J.R.1991. Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge andscaffolding text. In E.Ventola(Ed.). Trends in linguistics: Functional and systemiclinguistics:307-337. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[23] Martin, J.R. English Text: System and Structure[M]. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,1992.
[24] Martin, J.R.&R. Veel. Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives onDiscourses of Science [M]. London: Routledge,1997.
[25] Mattiessen, C.1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction[A]//M. Davies&L.Ravelli(eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice [C]. NewYork: Pinter
[26] Orthony, A.(ed.).1979[1993]. Language and Thought [C].(2nded.) Cambrige: CambridgeUniversity Press.
[27] Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor (trans. By R. Czerny with K. McLaughlin and J.Costello)[M]. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd,1977/1986.
[28] Taylor, T.J. Language constructing Language: The implications of reflexivity forlinguistic theory [J]. Language Sciences,2000(1):483-499.
[29] Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar.(2nded.) London: Hodder Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2008.
[30]范文芳(Fan Wenfang).《英语语气隐喻》[J].《外国语》，2000，（4）：29-34.
[31]范文芳(Fan Wenfang).《语法隐喻理论研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
[32]胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄（Hu Zhuanglin, Zhu Yongsheg, Zhang Delu）.《系统功能语法概论》[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社，1989.
[33]胡壮麟(Hu Zhuanglin).语法隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》，1996，（4）：1-7
[34]胡壮麟（Hu Zhuanglin）.评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J],《外语教学与研究》，2000，（2）：88-94
[35]李国庆(Li Guoqing).韩礼德语气隐喻理论：分析桑提亚哥与曼诺林之间的关系[J],《四川外语学院学报》，2001，（4）：80-82.
[36]李瑞芳，孟令新（Li Ruifang, Meng Lingxin）.第二语言学习中语法隐喻对语言输入的影响[J]，《外语教学》，2004，（3）：79-82
[37]刘承宇（Liu Chengyu）.语法隐喻的文体价值[J]，《现代外语》，2003，（2）：120-127
[38].严世清(Yan Shiqing).语法隐喻理论的发展及其理论意义[J],《外国语》，2003，（3）：51-57
[39]杨才英(Yang Caiying).语气隐喻：言语功能扩展的机制[J],《外语研究》，2006，（3）：1-5
[40]曾蕾(Zeng Lei).从语法隐喻理论视角看学术语篇中的“投射”.[J],《外语学刊》，2007，（3）：46-49
[41]朱永生，严世清(Zhu Yongsheng, Yan Shiqing).语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献[J],《外语教学与研究》，2000，（2）：95-102.
[42]朱永生（Zhu Yongsheng）.名词化、动词化和语法隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》，2006，（2）：83-90.