主观性视角下的Because-因果复句多义性的研究
|
摘要
因果关系是自然界中和人类社会里存在着的一种普遍关系。英语中表达因果关系的手段很多,其中because-因果复句是表达因果关系的最基本、最重要的形式之一。长期以来,语言学家们主要是从传统语法视角、功能语用视角和对比分析视角探讨这个问题,但对because-因果复句的主观认知动机的考察较少。
主观性是指说话者在说出一段话语时会有意或无意的表明自己对这段话语的态度,从而在话语中留下自我的印记。主观化是语言为体现这种主观性而形成相应的结构机制或经历相应的演变过程。因果复句的运用承载着使用者的主观性认识。本文试图运用主观性和主观化理论对because-因果复句语义拓展的主观动机进行认知分析。本研究首先根据言语场景介入程度的高低,将because-因果复句分为逻辑因果复句、推理因果复句和言语行为因果复句三类,然后从共时角度探讨这三类because-因果复句因主观性的渗入而引起的语义多样性的形成过程,最后分析三种because-因果复句体现的语义、句法和语用特征.
通过对语言现象的分析,我们得出的结论主要有以下三点:(1)Because-因果复句的语义多样性是有其认知基础的,即概念化过程中识解方式的差异导致because-因果复句的多义性,而识解的差异又来源于言语场景在识解关系中的介入程度。(2)Because-因果复句的语义拓展的动因在于主观性。Because-因果复句识解过程中言语场景的介入程度亦能映照不同类型because-因果复句的主观性等级。各种because-因果复句的主观性构成一个连续统,主观性强弱的顺序可体现为:逻辑因果复句主观性<推理性因果复句主观性<言语行为因果复句主观性。(3)三种because-因果复句中体现的句法、语义和语用特征各有特点。
The relationship of cause and effect is prevailing in the natural world and human society. There are many ways to express cause-effect relationship, among which because-causal complex sentence (hereafter called because-CCS) is one of the most basic and important forms. So far, linguists have explored this issue from the perspective of traditional grammar, functional-pragmatic and contrastive analysis. However, the studies on subjective motivation of because-CCS are insufficient.
Subjectivity refers to the expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s perspective or point of view in discourse– what has been called a speaker’s imprint. Subjectificaiton refers to the structures and strategies that languages evolve in the linguistic realization of subjectivity or to the relevant processes of linguistic evolution themselves. The use of because-CCS carries the subjective construal of the users. The present study aims to explore the cognitive motivation of the semantic extensions of because-CCS with the theory of subjectivity and subjectification. The study will first classify because-CCS into three types: logical because-CCS, inferential because-CCS and speech act because-CCS according to the degree of ground involvement, and then it will investigate the process of the diversification of because-CCS due to the involvement of the subjectivity from the synchronic approach. At last, the study will analyze the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic features in the three types of because-CCS.
After a careful investigation, we come to the following conclusions: 1) the diversification of because-CCS is cognitively motivated, which means that the diversification is motivated by the construal difference in its conceptualization which results from the degree of the ground involvement in the construal relation; 2) the underlying force for the diversification of because-CCS is deeply rooted in subjectivity. The degree of the ground involvement in the construal of because-CCS suggests the degree of subjectivity in the three types of because-CCS which forms a continuum in the order of less subjective to more subjective: logical because-CCS < inferential because-CCS < speech act because-CCS; 3) the three types of because-CCS have specific linguistic features in terms of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic aspects.
主观性是指说话者在说出一段话语时会有意或无意的表明自己对这段话语的态度,从而在话语中留下自我的印记。主观化是语言为体现这种主观性而形成相应的结构机制或经历相应的演变过程。因果复句的运用承载着使用者的主观性认识。本文试图运用主观性和主观化理论对because-因果复句语义拓展的主观动机进行认知分析。本研究首先根据言语场景介入程度的高低,将because-因果复句分为逻辑因果复句、推理因果复句和言语行为因果复句三类,然后从共时角度探讨这三类because-因果复句因主观性的渗入而引起的语义多样性的形成过程,最后分析三种because-因果复句体现的语义、句法和语用特征.
通过对语言现象的分析,我们得出的结论主要有以下三点:(1)Because-因果复句的语义多样性是有其认知基础的,即概念化过程中识解方式的差异导致because-因果复句的多义性,而识解的差异又来源于言语场景在识解关系中的介入程度。(2)Because-因果复句的语义拓展的动因在于主观性。Because-因果复句识解过程中言语场景的介入程度亦能映照不同类型because-因果复句的主观性等级。各种because-因果复句的主观性构成一个连续统,主观性强弱的顺序可体现为:逻辑因果复句主观性<推理性因果复句主观性<言语行为因果复句主观性。(3)三种because-因果复句中体现的句法、语义和语用特征各有特点。
The relationship of cause and effect is prevailing in the natural world and human society. There are many ways to express cause-effect relationship, among which because-causal complex sentence (hereafter called because-CCS) is one of the most basic and important forms. So far, linguists have explored this issue from the perspective of traditional grammar, functional-pragmatic and contrastive analysis. However, the studies on subjective motivation of because-CCS are insufficient.
Subjectivity refers to the expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s perspective or point of view in discourse– what has been called a speaker’s imprint. Subjectificaiton refers to the structures and strategies that languages evolve in the linguistic realization of subjectivity or to the relevant processes of linguistic evolution themselves. The use of because-CCS carries the subjective construal of the users. The present study aims to explore the cognitive motivation of the semantic extensions of because-CCS with the theory of subjectivity and subjectification. The study will first classify because-CCS into three types: logical because-CCS, inferential because-CCS and speech act because-CCS according to the degree of ground involvement, and then it will investigate the process of the diversification of because-CCS due to the involvement of the subjectivity from the synchronic approach. At last, the study will analyze the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic features in the three types of because-CCS.
After a careful investigation, we come to the following conclusions: 1) the diversification of because-CCS is cognitively motivated, which means that the diversification is motivated by the construal difference in its conceptualization which results from the degree of the ground involvement in the construal relation; 2) the underlying force for the diversification of because-CCS is deeply rooted in subjectivity. The degree of the ground involvement in the construal of because-CCS suggests the degree of subjectivity in the three types of because-CCS which forms a continuum in the order of less subjective to more subjective: logical because-CCS < inferential because-CCS < speech act because-CCS; 3) the three types of because-CCS have specific linguistic features in terms of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic aspects.
引文
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2000.
Biber et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson, 1999.
Claridge, Claudia, and Terry Walker.“Causal Clauses in Written and Speech-related Genres in Early Modern English”. ICAME Jounal, 2002(25):31-63.
Degand, Liesbeth.“On Classifying Connectives and Coherence Relations.”1998. 9 March 2011. < http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W98/W98-0305.pdf>.
Degand, Liesbeth., and Henk pander Matt.“A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale”. In Verhagen, A., and J. van de Weijer (eds.), Usage based approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. 2003:175-99
Finegan, E.“Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: An Introduction”. In D. Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:1-16.
Ford,Cecilia E. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
---.“Dialogic Aspects of Talk and Writing: Because on the Interactive-edited Continuum”. Text, 1994(4):531-54
Ford, Cecilia E., and Junko Mori.“Causal Markers in Japanese and English Conversations: A Cross-linguistic Study of Interactional Grammar. Pragmatics, 1994(1):31-62.
Goanpyo, Hong. The Clarification of the Functional Differences among Causal Connective Suffixes in Korean. California: University of Southern California, 2006.
Günthner, Susanne.“From Subordination to Coordination? Verb-second Position in German Causal and Concessive Constructions”. Pragmatics, 1996 (6):323-56.
Greenberg, J.H.“Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements”. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1963:71-113
Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1984.
Iten, C.“Because and Although: a Case of Duality?”UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 1997:1-24. Juliet, Frey S. Perception of Cause. Indiana: Indiana University, 1980.
Langacker, R.W.“Observation and Speculations on Subjectivity”. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 1985:109-50.
---.“Subjectification”. Cognitive linguistics, 1990a:5-38.
---. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990b.
---. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I). Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2004.
Quirk, R., et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited. 1985.
Rutherford, W.E.“Some Observations Concerning Subordinate Clauses in English”. Language, 1970(1): 97-115.
Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Smet, Hendrik D., and J-C. Verstraete.“Come to Terms with Subjectivity”. Cognitive Linguistics,2006(3):365-92.
Spooren, W. et al.“Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language”. In J. Newman, and S. Rice (eds.), Empirical and Experimenta Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007:1-16.
Stein, D., and S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2002.
Traugott, E.C.“Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization.”Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1988:406-16.
---.“On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language, 1989(65):31-55.
---.“Subjectification in Grammaticalization”. In D. Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:31-54. Verhagen, Arie.“On Subjectivity and‘Long-distance Wh-movement’”. In Angeliki Athanasiadou et al (eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006:323-46.
---.“Construal and Perspectivization”. In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007:48-81.
崔晓玲.英语因果复合句和汉语因果复合句的对比研究.延边大学硕士学位论文, 2001.
董星华. Because-因果句的语义概念化.四川外语学院院报, 2007(5):100-05.
杜琳. because与for用法浅议.山东外语教学, 1995(1):30-31
何兆熊.新编语用学概要.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
黄蓓.因果连词的识解与言语场景的介入—以because为例.天津外国语学院学报, 2009(5):14-22.
廖巧云.英语实据原因句探微.外国语, 2004 (4):46-52.
廖巧云.英语因果构式探讨.外语研究, 2007(3):24-27.
廖巧云.英语实据因果句与溯因推理.四川外语学院院报, 2007(4):60-64.
廖巧云.英语实据因果句生成机理研究.现代外语2008(3):238-44, 328.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究.现代外语, 2006(4):338-45.
申小龙.汉语句型研究.海口:海南人民出版社, 1989.
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”.外语教学与研究, 2001 (4):268-75.
沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”.中国语文2003 (3):195-203.
苏倩倩. Because-因果复句的主观性研究.重庆大学硕士学位论文, 2010.
王维贤.现代汉语语法理论研究.北京:语文出版社, 1997.
王寅.论语言符号象似性.外语与外语教学, 1999(5):4-6
徐静.非英语专业学生议论文中因果连接词使用分析.大连海事大学硕士学位论文, 2007.
徐李洁.语言的主观性---对英语IF条件句构式多义性的认知研究.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2008.
徐盛桓、李淑静.英语原因句的嬗变.外语学刊, 2005(1):56-62.
阳慧.因果概念和英语因果句的生成与扩展.湖南师范大学硕士学位论文, 2010.
姚宝梁.重论英语因果关系复句.首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2002(增刊):104-07.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
张俭. CLEC语料库中BECAUSE的使用特点.大连海事大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
张丽红.英汉原因状语从句对比研究.安徽大学硕士学位论文, 2005.
Biber et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson, 1999.
Claridge, Claudia, and Terry Walker.“Causal Clauses in Written and Speech-related Genres in Early Modern English”. ICAME Jounal, 2002(25):31-63.
Degand, Liesbeth.“On Classifying Connectives and Coherence Relations.”1998. 9 March 2011. < http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W98/W98-0305.pdf>.
Degand, Liesbeth., and Henk pander Matt.“A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale”. In Verhagen, A., and J. van de Weijer (eds.), Usage based approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. 2003:175-99
Finegan, E.“Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: An Introduction”. In D. Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:1-16.
Ford,Cecilia E. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
---.“Dialogic Aspects of Talk and Writing: Because on the Interactive-edited Continuum”. Text, 1994(4):531-54
Ford, Cecilia E., and Junko Mori.“Causal Markers in Japanese and English Conversations: A Cross-linguistic Study of Interactional Grammar. Pragmatics, 1994(1):31-62.
Goanpyo, Hong. The Clarification of the Functional Differences among Causal Connective Suffixes in Korean. California: University of Southern California, 2006.
Günthner, Susanne.“From Subordination to Coordination? Verb-second Position in German Causal and Concessive Constructions”. Pragmatics, 1996 (6):323-56.
Greenberg, J.H.“Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements”. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1963:71-113
Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1984.
Iten, C.“Because and Although: a Case of Duality?”UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 1997:1-24. Juliet, Frey S. Perception of Cause. Indiana: Indiana University, 1980.
Langacker, R.W.“Observation and Speculations on Subjectivity”. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 1985:109-50.
---.“Subjectification”. Cognitive linguistics, 1990a:5-38.
---. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990b.
---. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I). Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2004.
Quirk, R., et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited. 1985.
Rutherford, W.E.“Some Observations Concerning Subordinate Clauses in English”. Language, 1970(1): 97-115.
Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Smet, Hendrik D., and J-C. Verstraete.“Come to Terms with Subjectivity”. Cognitive Linguistics,2006(3):365-92.
Spooren, W. et al.“Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language”. In J. Newman, and S. Rice (eds.), Empirical and Experimenta Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007:1-16.
Stein, D., and S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2002.
Traugott, E.C.“Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization.”Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1988:406-16.
---.“On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language, 1989(65):31-55.
---.“Subjectification in Grammaticalization”. In D. Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:31-54. Verhagen, Arie.“On Subjectivity and‘Long-distance Wh-movement’”. In Angeliki Athanasiadou et al (eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006:323-46.
---.“Construal and Perspectivization”. In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007:48-81.
崔晓玲.英语因果复合句和汉语因果复合句的对比研究.延边大学硕士学位论文, 2001.
董星华. Because-因果句的语义概念化.四川外语学院院报, 2007(5):100-05.
杜琳. because与for用法浅议.山东外语教学, 1995(1):30-31
何兆熊.新编语用学概要.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
黄蓓.因果连词的识解与言语场景的介入—以because为例.天津外国语学院学报, 2009(5):14-22.
廖巧云.英语实据原因句探微.外国语, 2004 (4):46-52.
廖巧云.英语因果构式探讨.外语研究, 2007(3):24-27.
廖巧云.英语实据因果句与溯因推理.四川外语学院院报, 2007(4):60-64.
廖巧云.英语实据因果句生成机理研究.现代外语2008(3):238-44, 328.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究.现代外语, 2006(4):338-45.
申小龙.汉语句型研究.海口:海南人民出版社, 1989.
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”.外语教学与研究, 2001 (4):268-75.
沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”.中国语文2003 (3):195-203.
苏倩倩. Because-因果复句的主观性研究.重庆大学硕士学位论文, 2010.
王维贤.现代汉语语法理论研究.北京:语文出版社, 1997.
王寅.论语言符号象似性.外语与外语教学, 1999(5):4-6
徐静.非英语专业学生议论文中因果连接词使用分析.大连海事大学硕士学位论文, 2007.
徐李洁.语言的主观性---对英语IF条件句构式多义性的认知研究.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2008.
徐盛桓、李淑静.英语原因句的嬗变.外语学刊, 2005(1):56-62.
阳慧.因果概念和英语因果句的生成与扩展.湖南师范大学硕士学位论文, 2010.
姚宝梁.重论英语因果关系复句.首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2002(增刊):104-07.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
张俭. CLEC语料库中BECAUSE的使用特点.大连海事大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
张丽红.英汉原因状语从句对比研究.安徽大学硕士学位论文, 2005.