反语的认知研究
摘要
反语是一种充满神秘的语言现象。人们正话反说,却能够被听话者正确理解。这背后隐藏着的秘密一直是众多学者所竭力探索的。虽然很多研究者已对反语的理解做了大量研究,但是很少对反语的触发机制作出细致研究。所以本文将运用概念整合理论,从认知语言学的视角来分析触发和推进反语理解的机制-百科知识,背景信息,逆向思维和相互性等。由这些触发机制导致空间冲突,然后听话者开始重组对话语的理解,最后意识到话语里包含的反讽意图。
本文选取相关例子,从跨空间映射和以组织性框架投射为依据进行分类的五种概念整合网络两方面进行分析,即单一网络,镜象网络,单域网络,双域网络和多边网络。最后通过对例子的分析可以看出,反语涉及如下四种网络类型,即镜象网络,双域网络,单域网络和多边网络,以及三种跨空间映射类型,分别是类比映,对比映射和隐喻映射。借助网络模型的分析过程可以清晰地看到反语理解触发机制的运转过程。
对反语意义构建的探索使得认知过程异常清晰,并且进一步证明了概念整合理论在心理认知过程中的巨大阐释力。此外,我们能更好地意识和理解这个隐形的心理过程并用这个理论解决一些语言问题。这一研究进一步证明了概念整合理论能完整地解释反语理解的内在认知过程,并且给反语的研究提供了一个不可替代的视角。
Irony is a kind of mysterious language phenomenon. Speakers always present utterances in an opposing way, but hearers could understand it correctly. Most scholars have been painstakingly exploring the hidden secrets behind this kind of process. Although lots of researchers have made great ironic research, they rarely made detailed analysis on the trigger mechanism of irony. So the dissertation will analyze triggering and promoting mechanism of ironic interpretation--encyclopedic knowledge, context, reverse thinking and mutuality from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. These triggers cause the space contrast and then hearers could reconstruct their understanding to utterances and finally realize the ironic intention.
The dissertation will use the theory of conceptual blending to interpret irony from the cognitive linguistics. Cross-space mapping and conceptual blending networks will be used in interpreting some relevant ironic examples. The five types of blending networks are--simplex networks, mirror networks, single-scope networks, double-scope networks and multiple blends. According to the above analyses, we could see that irony is relevant to following four kinds of networks--mirror networks, double-scope, single-scope networks, and multiple blends, and three types of cross-space mappings-- mapping in sharp contrast, analogical mapping, and metaphorical mapping. With the help of analytical process of network models, we could clearly observe the operation of the trigger mechanism.
The exploration of the on-line meaning construction of irony can make the cognitive operation explicit and further prove that conceptual blending is a universal cognitive operation in our mind. What's more, we can better realize and understand this invisible and unconscious mental process and solve some language problems with this theory. Through this study, it can be proved that the conceptual blending theory can completely explain the internal cognitive work in ironic understanding and provide an alternative perspective for the ironic study.
本文选取相关例子,从跨空间映射和以组织性框架投射为依据进行分类的五种概念整合网络两方面进行分析,即单一网络,镜象网络,单域网络,双域网络和多边网络。最后通过对例子的分析可以看出,反语涉及如下四种网络类型,即镜象网络,双域网络,单域网络和多边网络,以及三种跨空间映射类型,分别是类比映,对比映射和隐喻映射。借助网络模型的分析过程可以清晰地看到反语理解触发机制的运转过程。
对反语意义构建的探索使得认知过程异常清晰,并且进一步证明了概念整合理论在心理认知过程中的巨大阐释力。此外,我们能更好地意识和理解这个隐形的心理过程并用这个理论解决一些语言问题。这一研究进一步证明了概念整合理论能完整地解释反语理解的内在认知过程,并且给反语的研究提供了一个不可替代的视角。
Irony is a kind of mysterious language phenomenon. Speakers always present utterances in an opposing way, but hearers could understand it correctly. Most scholars have been painstakingly exploring the hidden secrets behind this kind of process. Although lots of researchers have made great ironic research, they rarely made detailed analysis on the trigger mechanism of irony. So the dissertation will analyze triggering and promoting mechanism of ironic interpretation--encyclopedic knowledge, context, reverse thinking and mutuality from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. These triggers cause the space contrast and then hearers could reconstruct their understanding to utterances and finally realize the ironic intention.
The dissertation will use the theory of conceptual blending to interpret irony from the cognitive linguistics. Cross-space mapping and conceptual blending networks will be used in interpreting some relevant ironic examples. The five types of blending networks are--simplex networks, mirror networks, single-scope networks, double-scope networks and multiple blends. According to the above analyses, we could see that irony is relevant to following four kinds of networks--mirror networks, double-scope, single-scope networks, and multiple blends, and three types of cross-space mappings-- mapping in sharp contrast, analogical mapping, and metaphorical mapping. With the help of analytical process of network models, we could clearly observe the operation of the trigger mechanism.
The exploration of the on-line meaning construction of irony can make the cognitive operation explicit and further prove that conceptual blending is a universal cognitive operation in our mind. What's more, we can better realize and understand this invisible and unconscious mental process and solve some language problems with this theory. Through this study, it can be proved that the conceptual blending theory can completely explain the internal cognitive work in ironic understanding and provide an alternative perspective for the ironic study.
引文
[1] Christina L.Gagne.2000.Relation-Based Combinations Versus Property-Based Combinations: A Test of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-process Theory of Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 42,365-389
[2] Edward J. Wisniewski and Erica L. Middleton. 2002.Of Bucket Bowls and Coffee Cup Bowls: Spatial Alignment in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language46,1-23
[3] Edward J. Wisniewski. 1996.Construal and similarity in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 35,434-453
[4] Edward J. Wisniewski and Bradley C. Love. 1998. Relations versus Properties in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 38,177-202
[5] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science.22(2):87-133
[6] Fauconnier,G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M].Cambridge:CUP
[7] Fauconnier,G. 2001. Conceptual blending and analogy [A]. In Dedre Gentnet, Keith Holyoak, and Boicho Kodinov(eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press
[8] Fauconnier,G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning construction in Natural Language [M].Cambridge:CUP
[9] Fintan J.Costello.2000.Efficient Creativity: Constraint-guided Conceptual Combination. Cognitive Science 24(2) ,299-349
[10] Gilles Fauconnier. Conceptual Blending and Analogy. 1/32
[11] Giora,R.1997.Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,7/1,183-206
[12] Giora, R.2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
[13] Lakoff,G & Johnson,M. 1980.Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[14] MerryI J. Wilkenfeld and Thomas B. Ward. 2001.Similarity and Emergence in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 21-38
[15] Paul Thagard. 1997. Coherent and Creative conceptual combination. University of Waterloo,1-14.
[16] Seana Coulson and Todd Oakley.2000.Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics11-3/4.175-196
[17] Stacey L.Ivanko and Penny M.Pexman. 2003. Context Incongruity and Irony Processing, University of Calgary, 241-279.
[18] Sam Glucksberg and Zachary Estes. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance.
[19] Thomas B.Ward. 2001. Creative cognition, Conceptual combination, and the Creative writing of Stephen R.Donaldson. Department of Psychology Texas A&M University,350-354
[20] Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
[21]曹道根,2004,理解反语:反语交际、反语生成和反语的理解[J].山东外语教学,第二期:9-13
[22]陈俊芳,郭雁文,2007,从复合空间理论看反语的认知机制.内蒙古电大学刊,第四期:60-61
[23]陈晶晶.反语生成和理解的机制研究.韶关学院学报.社会科学.第7期
[24]董孟春,浅析修辞格和修辞手法与语用原则的关系。开封教育学院学报,第3期
[25]姜凤斌.2001,论鲁迅杂文中的反语的应用,《承德名族师专学报》第3期:34-35
[26]蒋勇,2004,语用三角模型对空间复合理论和关联理论的整合,《语言的认知研究-认知语言学论文精选》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.584-601
[27]巨芳,2009,汉语言语反语语用研究.山西农业大学学报,第5期
[28]刘正光,2002,反语理论综述[J].解放军外国语学院学报,第4期:16-20
[29]刘正光.2003,反语理解三假说,《外国语》第2期:32-38
[30]刘正光,2007,隐喻的认知研究-隐喻与实践.湖南人民出版社
[31]刘正光,2004,Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑,《语言的认知研究-认知语言学论文精选》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.567-581
[32]刘颖.反语认知的概念整合理论解释.语言.文化研究
[33]罗玲,2009,概念整合理论视野下的移就认知阐释.贵州教育学院学报.第7期
[34]龙君,2008,浅谈反语产生的心理动机.潭师范学院学报,第3期
[35]马遂莲,2006,反语修辞“辞面”和“辞里”之新探.平顶山学院学报,第1期:77-80
[36]涂靖,2004,论反语的本质属性[J]外语教学,第6期:28-31
[37]涂靖,2004,反讽的认知研究,《外语学刊》第2期:56-59
[38]姚俊,2003,“论反语理解的认知机制及其语用效力”,成都:四川外国语学院学报
[39]阎苹,黄建,2009,关于反语的语用功能研究,吉林省教育学院学报,第5期
[40]曾衍桃,2004,国外反讽研究纵观[J].西安外国语学院学报,第9期:3-7
[41]曾衍桃,2006,反讽论.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[2] Edward J. Wisniewski and Erica L. Middleton. 2002.Of Bucket Bowls and Coffee Cup Bowls: Spatial Alignment in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language46,1-23
[3] Edward J. Wisniewski. 1996.Construal and similarity in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 35,434-453
[4] Edward J. Wisniewski and Bradley C. Love. 1998. Relations versus Properties in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 38,177-202
[5] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science.22(2):87-133
[6] Fauconnier,G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M].Cambridge:CUP
[7] Fauconnier,G. 2001. Conceptual blending and analogy [A]. In Dedre Gentnet, Keith Holyoak, and Boicho Kodinov(eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press
[8] Fauconnier,G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning construction in Natural Language [M].Cambridge:CUP
[9] Fintan J.Costello.2000.Efficient Creativity: Constraint-guided Conceptual Combination. Cognitive Science 24(2) ,299-349
[10] Gilles Fauconnier. Conceptual Blending and Analogy. 1/32
[11] Giora,R.1997.Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,7/1,183-206
[12] Giora, R.2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
[13] Lakoff,G & Johnson,M. 1980.Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[14] MerryI J. Wilkenfeld and Thomas B. Ward. 2001.Similarity and Emergence in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 21-38
[15] Paul Thagard. 1997. Coherent and Creative conceptual combination. University of Waterloo,1-14.
[16] Seana Coulson and Todd Oakley.2000.Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics11-3/4.175-196
[17] Stacey L.Ivanko and Penny M.Pexman. 2003. Context Incongruity and Irony Processing, University of Calgary, 241-279.
[18] Sam Glucksberg and Zachary Estes. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance.
[19] Thomas B.Ward. 2001. Creative cognition, Conceptual combination, and the Creative writing of Stephen R.Donaldson. Department of Psychology Texas A&M University,350-354
[20] Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
[21]曹道根,2004,理解反语:反语交际、反语生成和反语的理解[J].山东外语教学,第二期:9-13
[22]陈俊芳,郭雁文,2007,从复合空间理论看反语的认知机制.内蒙古电大学刊,第四期:60-61
[23]陈晶晶.反语生成和理解的机制研究.韶关学院学报.社会科学.第7期
[24]董孟春,浅析修辞格和修辞手法与语用原则的关系。开封教育学院学报,第3期
[25]姜凤斌.2001,论鲁迅杂文中的反语的应用,《承德名族师专学报》第3期:34-35
[26]蒋勇,2004,语用三角模型对空间复合理论和关联理论的整合,《语言的认知研究-认知语言学论文精选》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.584-601
[27]巨芳,2009,汉语言语反语语用研究.山西农业大学学报,第5期
[28]刘正光,2002,反语理论综述[J].解放军外国语学院学报,第4期:16-20
[29]刘正光.2003,反语理解三假说,《外国语》第2期:32-38
[30]刘正光,2007,隐喻的认知研究-隐喻与实践.湖南人民出版社
[31]刘正光,2004,Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑,《语言的认知研究-认知语言学论文精选》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.567-581
[32]刘颖.反语认知的概念整合理论解释.语言.文化研究
[33]罗玲,2009,概念整合理论视野下的移就认知阐释.贵州教育学院学报.第7期
[34]龙君,2008,浅谈反语产生的心理动机.潭师范学院学报,第3期
[35]马遂莲,2006,反语修辞“辞面”和“辞里”之新探.平顶山学院学报,第1期:77-80
[36]涂靖,2004,论反语的本质属性[J]外语教学,第6期:28-31
[37]涂靖,2004,反讽的认知研究,《外语学刊》第2期:56-59
[38]姚俊,2003,“论反语理解的认知机制及其语用效力”,成都:四川外国语学院学报
[39]阎苹,黄建,2009,关于反语的语用功能研究,吉林省教育学院学报,第5期
[40]曾衍桃,2004,国外反讽研究纵观[J].西安外国语学院学报,第9期:3-7
[41]曾衍桃,2006,反讽论.北京:中国社会科学出版社.