概念整合理论对英语移就辞格意义的认知阐释
|
摘要
英语移就修辞格是一种超乎常规的语言现象，也是语言学习及文学欣赏中的一种不可忽视的修辞手段。移就辞格的巧妙运用有着独特的表达效果与艺术魅力。修辞格的理解依赖于人类的联想能力，他们的认知功能和语义功能也就不言而喻了。对于移就辞格的传统研究都集中在它的美学功能，却忽视了对其意义构建的认知过程的解释。
本文介绍了一种新的语义构建的认知理论，即概念整合理论。并以移就定义为出发点，证明概念整合是一种非常普遍的认知活动，为意义构建开拓了广阔的前景，具有极大的解释力。
本文以其定义与特点为依据选取十个英语移就辞格为例，从跨空间映射(cross-space mapping)和以组织性框架投射(projection of organizing frame)为依据进行分类的四种概念整合网络(integration networks)两方面对其进行分析。概念整合依赖于跨空间映射，映射与概念整合在意义构建过程中起着关键性的作用。通过仔细分析可以看出，移就辞格的意义构建涉及四种映射类型：类推式映射(analogical mapping)，隐喻性映射(metaphorical mapping)，借代式映射(metonymical mapping)和一个输入空间隐藏的映射(mapping with the phrase as one input)。四种概念整合网络即：单一框架网络(single-framing networks)，框架网络(frame networks)，单边网络(one-sided networks)和双边网络(two-sided networks)。这四种概念整合网络在移就辞格中的分析一定程度上揭示了移就辞格意义的转移和产生的过程。最后值得注意的是，语境和作者的意图在理解和阐释移就的过程中也起着非常重要的作用。
Transferred epithet is one of the figures of speech frequently used in our expression. A better understanding of this seemingly illogical modification is undoubtedly of great benefit for common readers. Most of the traditional study of this rhetoric device focused on its aesthetic function. Unfortunately they failed to scientifically illustrate the concrete cognitive process of its meaning construction.
In this dissertation, the conceptual integration theory advanced by Fauconnier and Turner is applied to the interpretation of transferred epithet. The purpose is to test the adequacy and descriptive power of the blending framework, and this study is also expected to come up with new insights to widen the wealth of data that is necessary to verify the generality of conceptual integration.
Based on its definition and characteristics, ten English transferred epithets were chosen as data of this cognitive study. Mappings across cognitive domains play central role in language and thought. All blending depends upon cross-space mapping. Mapping between domains and blending are at the heart of meaning construction. Conceptual integration must follow five optimality principles, under whose constraints we can build up four types conceptual integration whose classification is based on the projection of organizing frame. After careful study I find that, on one hand, the meaning construction in transferred epithet involves four types of mapping. They are analogical mapping, metaphorical mapping, metonymical mapping and mapping with the phrase as one input. On the other hand, the analysis of the four types of integration networks in the ten transferred epithets, that is, single-framing networks, frame networks, one-sided networks and two-sided networks, to some degree, revealed the production, transferenc
e and process of meaning in transferred epithet. At last, it's worth noticing that context and the writer's intention are very essential in the understanding and interpretation of transferred epithet.
本文介绍了一种新的语义构建的认知理论，即概念整合理论。并以移就定义为出发点，证明概念整合是一种非常普遍的认知活动，为意义构建开拓了广阔的前景，具有极大的解释力。
本文以其定义与特点为依据选取十个英语移就辞格为例，从跨空间映射(cross-space mapping)和以组织性框架投射(projection of organizing frame)为依据进行分类的四种概念整合网络(integration networks)两方面对其进行分析。概念整合依赖于跨空间映射，映射与概念整合在意义构建过程中起着关键性的作用。通过仔细分析可以看出，移就辞格的意义构建涉及四种映射类型：类推式映射(analogical mapping)，隐喻性映射(metaphorical mapping)，借代式映射(metonymical mapping)和一个输入空间隐藏的映射(mapping with the phrase as one input)。四种概念整合网络即：单一框架网络(single-framing networks)，框架网络(frame networks)，单边网络(one-sided networks)和双边网络(two-sided networks)。这四种概念整合网络在移就辞格中的分析一定程度上揭示了移就辞格意义的转移和产生的过程。最后值得注意的是，语境和作者的意图在理解和阐释移就的过程中也起着非常重要的作用。
Transferred epithet is one of the figures of speech frequently used in our expression. A better understanding of this seemingly illogical modification is undoubtedly of great benefit for common readers. Most of the traditional study of this rhetoric device focused on its aesthetic function. Unfortunately they failed to scientifically illustrate the concrete cognitive process of its meaning construction.
In this dissertation, the conceptual integration theory advanced by Fauconnier and Turner is applied to the interpretation of transferred epithet. The purpose is to test the adequacy and descriptive power of the blending framework, and this study is also expected to come up with new insights to widen the wealth of data that is necessary to verify the generality of conceptual integration.
Based on its definition and characteristics, ten English transferred epithets were chosen as data of this cognitive study. Mappings across cognitive domains play central role in language and thought. All blending depends upon cross-space mapping. Mapping between domains and blending are at the heart of meaning construction. Conceptual integration must follow five optimality principles, under whose constraints we can build up four types conceptual integration whose classification is based on the projection of organizing frame. After careful study I find that, on one hand, the meaning construction in transferred epithet involves four types of mapping. They are analogical mapping, metaphorical mapping, metonymical mapping and mapping with the phrase as one input. On the other hand, the analysis of the four types of integration networks in the ten transferred epithets, that is, single-framing networks, frame networks, one-sided networks and two-sided networks, to some degree, revealed the production, transferenc
e and process of meaning in transferred epithet. At last, it's worth noticing that context and the writer's intention are very essential in the understanding and interpretation of transferred epithet.
引文
[1] Cliff Goddard. 1997. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
[2] Coulson, S. 1996. Menedez Brother Virus: Blended Spaces and Internet Humor. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[3] Coulson, seana. 1997. Semantic Leaps: The Role of Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Coulson, Seana. & Gilles Fauconnier. 1998. Fake Guns and Stone Lions: Conceptual Blending and Privative Adjectives. Cognition and Function in Language. In Daniel Jurafsky, Laura Michaelis and Barbara Fox(Ed.). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
[5] Cuddon, J.A. 1979. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Great Britain: W and J Mackay Limited.
[6] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1994. Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces. Technical Report no. 9401. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.
[8] Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridhe, U. K: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1996. Blending As A Central Process of Grammar. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: Center for the study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications. pp. 113-129.
[10] Fauconnier, G. 1998. Mental spaces, Language Modalities, and Conceptual Integration. In Michael Tomasello(Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. pp. 251-279.
[11] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Principles of Conceptual Integration. In Jean Pierre Koening (Ed.). Discourse and Cognition. Stanford; CSLI Publications, pp. 269-283.
[12] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science 22:2.133-187.
[13] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration in Counterfactuals. In Jean-Pierre Koening (Ed.) Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford: CSLI 285-296.
[14] Fauconnier, G & M. Turner. 2003. Conceptual Integration. 上海：《外国语》第二期.
[15] Grady, J. Oakley, T. Coulson, S. 1999. Blending and Metaphor. In Raymond W et al. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
[16] Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Mass: MIT Press.
[17] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[18] Lakoff, G. 1988. Cognitive Semantics. In V. Eco (ed.). Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp 119-154.
[19] Lakoff, G & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[20] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
[21] Langaeker, R. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.
[22] Langacker, R. W. 1998. Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar. In Michael Tomasello(Ed.). The New Psychology of Language London: Lawrence Erlbattm Associates Publishers.pp.251-279.
[23] Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[24] Lardham, R.A. 1991. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. USA: University of California Press.
[25] Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1981. Semantics, second edition: Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[26] Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
[27] Nesfield, J. C. & Wood, F.T. 1964. Manual of English Grammar and Composition. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
[28] Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[29] Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: the Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[31] Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 183-203.
[32] Turner, Mark & Gilles Faucormier. 1998. Blending and Metaphor. Compressed (unix) postscript version available from http://cogsci.ucsd.edu
[33] Wales, K. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics. England: Longman Group UK Ltd.
[34] 《辞海》，1979，上海：上海辞书出版社。
[35] 陈望道，1979，《修辞学发凡》，上海：上海教育出版社。
[36] 范家材，1992，《英语修辞赏析》，上海：上海交通大学出版社。
[37] 冯惠茹，2003，谈英语移就修辞格，河南：《河南大学学报》(社会科学版)第3期。
[38] 胡曙中，2002，英语修辞学，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[39] 黄惠敏，2002，英语“移就”的逻辑性矛盾，北京：《外语研究》第2期。
[2] Coulson, S. 1996. Menedez Brother Virus: Blended Spaces and Internet Humor. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[3] Coulson, seana. 1997. Semantic Leaps: The Role of Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Coulson, Seana. & Gilles Fauconnier. 1998. Fake Guns and Stone Lions: Conceptual Blending and Privative Adjectives. Cognition and Function in Language. In Daniel Jurafsky, Laura Michaelis and Barbara Fox(Ed.). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
[5] Cuddon, J.A. 1979. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Great Britain: W and J Mackay Limited.
[6] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1994. Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces. Technical Report no. 9401. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.
[8] Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridhe, U. K: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Fauconnier, G & Turner, M. 1996. Blending As A Central Process of Grammar. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: Center for the study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications. pp. 113-129.
[10] Fauconnier, G. 1998. Mental spaces, Language Modalities, and Conceptual Integration. In Michael Tomasello(Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. pp. 251-279.
[11] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Principles of Conceptual Integration. In Jean Pierre Koening (Ed.). Discourse and Cognition. Stanford; CSLI Publications, pp. 269-283.
[12] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science 22:2.133-187.
[13] Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration in Counterfactuals. In Jean-Pierre Koening (Ed.) Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford: CSLI 285-296.
[14] Fauconnier, G & M. Turner. 2003. Conceptual Integration. 上海：《外国语》第二期.
[15] Grady, J. Oakley, T. Coulson, S. 1999. Blending and Metaphor. In Raymond W et al. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
[16] Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Mass: MIT Press.
[17] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[18] Lakoff, G. 1988. Cognitive Semantics. In V. Eco (ed.). Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp 119-154.
[19] Lakoff, G & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[20] Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
[21] Langaeker, R. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.
[22] Langacker, R. W. 1998. Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar. In Michael Tomasello(Ed.). The New Psychology of Language London: Lawrence Erlbattm Associates Publishers.pp.251-279.
[23] Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[24] Lardham, R.A. 1991. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. USA: University of California Press.
[25] Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1981. Semantics, second edition: Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[26] Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
[27] Nesfield, J. C. & Wood, F.T. 1964. Manual of English Grammar and Composition. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
[28] Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[29] Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: the Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[31] Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 183-203.
[32] Turner, Mark & Gilles Faucormier. 1998. Blending and Metaphor. Compressed (unix) postscript version available from http://cogsci.ucsd.edu
[33] Wales, K. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics. England: Longman Group UK Ltd.
[34] 《辞海》，1979，上海：上海辞书出版社。
[35] 陈望道，1979，《修辞学发凡》，上海：上海教育出版社。
[36] 范家材，1992，《英语修辞赏析》，上海：上海交通大学出版社。
[37] 冯惠茹，2003，谈英语移就修辞格，河南：《河南大学学报》(社会科学版)第3期。
[38] 胡曙中，2002，英语修辞学，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[39] 黄惠敏，2002，英语“移就”的逻辑性矛盾，北京：《外语研究》第2期。