介词Through多义性的认知解读
|
摘要
多义现象是当今语言学研究的一个重要方面。传统语言学家认为心理词汇的构成是任意的,是依赖语境的,对多义现象的分析要局限在句子层面。对于介词多义现象,他们采取描述性的方式来分析,把重点放在介词与其他词类发生关系时的作用上,忽视了一个介词的多种含义之间的内在联系。认知语言学家采取了不同的分析角度:他们把介词多义研究放在首位。依据认知语言学家的观点,介词多义现象是指一个介词拥有许多相互关联却又具有区别性的意义的现象。诸多区别性意义围绕核心意义形成一个语义网络或多义网络。针对这一现象,认知语言学家们纷纷提出了自己的研究模式。其中,Tyler和Evans(2001,2003)在总结前人的基础上提出的原则性多义模式尤为突出。在这一模式中,他们提出了一套全新的术语,其中包括原型意义、原型场景、独立义项和义群。他们把介词的原型意义定义为原型场景并提出了确定原型场景和独立义项的标准。在他们看来,意义建构过程是语言学知识和非语言学知识的概念整合过程。在这一过程中,概念重组,推断策略,语用强化等认知法则发挥了重要作用。
本文在认知语法的框架下,以Tyler和Evans的原则性多义模式为理论依据来分析介词Through的多义性。根据Tyler和Evans提出的标准和描写方法,本文系统地刻画了介词Through的多义网络:1)介词Through的原型场景(原型意义)是动体(Trajector)穿越有限界标(Landmark):动体(TR)从界标(LM)的一端进入(Entrance point),通过一段路径(Path)后,从界标(LM)穿出(Exit point);2)介词Through具有10个独立义项。其中,有6个义项属于“三点射程”义群,两个独立义项属于“持续到终点”义群,余下的两个独立义项则分别属于两个独立的准义群;3)“三点射程”义群、“持续到终点”义群和两个独立的准义群围绕Through的原型场景(原型意义)形成了它的多义网络。
本文的研究意义主要体现在以下方面:首先,虽然一些研究者曾经对介词Through的语义作过分析,但很少有人从认知角度总结出它的语义结构,几乎没有人采用Tyler和Evans的原则性多义模式来进行分析。其次,通过对介词Through多义网络的分析,进一步证明了原则性多义模式对介词多义现象研究的可行性和有效性。第三,本文尝试提出了介词教学的新方法:中心—边缘法。希望对外语教师教学和学生培养词汇能力有所帮助。
Polysemy is an important issue in the current linguistic study. Traditional linguists have argued that mental lexicon is an arbitrary list of lexemes and context-dependant. The analyses on Polysemy should be made at sentence level. They adopt a descriptive approach toward the semantics of prepositional polysemy, which just puts emphasis on the function of prepositions in relation with other word classes and neglects the internal relationships among the complex meanings. In contrast, cognitive linguists take a different perspective. They focus on the prepositional polysemy. From their point of view, prepositional polysmy refers to the phenomenon whereby a single preposition is associated with a number of related but distinct meanings. Surrounding the core meaning, a semantic or polysemy network is formed. With this common belief, cognitive linguists have developed various research ways. Among them, the Principle Polysemy Approach proposed by Tyler and Evans (2001,2003) shows its advantage. After making an extensive investigation on previous researches, Tyler and Evans establish a set of terms including primary sense, proto-scene, distinct sense and cluster of sense. They define the primary sense of a spatial particle as the proto-scene and establish the well-motivated criteria for determining the proto-scene and distinct senses associated with a preposition. They take account of meaning construction as a process which relies upon conceptual integration of linguistic and non-linguistic prompts, guided by various global cognitive principles such as reconceptualization, inferencing strategies and pragmatic strengthening.
Inspired by the polysemy researches done within the framework of cognitive semantics , the author attempts to analyze the polysemy of through on the basis of Principle Polysemy Approach proposed by Tyler and Evans. The polysemy network of through can be described as: (1) the proto-scene associated with through denotes the spatial configuration that a trajectory (TR) traversed with a bounded landmark (LM) by the virtue of an entrance point and an end point. The functional configurance of the proto-scene is the notion of path, that is, contiguous locations along the LM; (2) the present study determines 10 distinct senses associated with the preposition through. Among them, six distinct senses belong to the A-B-C Trajectory Cluster; two distinct senses belong to the Up-to-the-end Cluster and the rest two belong to two quasi-clusters respectively; (3) the A-B-C Trajectory Cluster、the Up-to-the-end Cluster and two quasi-clusters, surrounding the proto-scene of through, consist of its polysemy network.
The significance of the present research lies in the following aspects: (1) even though some researchers have analyzed the preposition through, few have ever worked out a systematic semantic structure of it in the light of cognitive linguistics; (2) by adopting Tyler and Evans' Model of Principle Polysemy, the thesis further proves the feasibility of this cognitive model; (3) based on the analyses of polysemy network associated with through, the present research proposes a Central-peripheral Method for the teaching of prepositions in the hope of offering help to the teachers and students.
本文在认知语法的框架下,以Tyler和Evans的原则性多义模式为理论依据来分析介词Through的多义性。根据Tyler和Evans提出的标准和描写方法,本文系统地刻画了介词Through的多义网络:1)介词Through的原型场景(原型意义)是动体(Trajector)穿越有限界标(Landmark):动体(TR)从界标(LM)的一端进入(Entrance point),通过一段路径(Path)后,从界标(LM)穿出(Exit point);2)介词Through具有10个独立义项。其中,有6个义项属于“三点射程”义群,两个独立义项属于“持续到终点”义群,余下的两个独立义项则分别属于两个独立的准义群;3)“三点射程”义群、“持续到终点”义群和两个独立的准义群围绕Through的原型场景(原型意义)形成了它的多义网络。
本文的研究意义主要体现在以下方面:首先,虽然一些研究者曾经对介词Through的语义作过分析,但很少有人从认知角度总结出它的语义结构,几乎没有人采用Tyler和Evans的原则性多义模式来进行分析。其次,通过对介词Through多义网络的分析,进一步证明了原则性多义模式对介词多义现象研究的可行性和有效性。第三,本文尝试提出了介词教学的新方法:中心—边缘法。希望对外语教师教学和学生培养词汇能力有所帮助。
Polysemy is an important issue in the current linguistic study. Traditional linguists have argued that mental lexicon is an arbitrary list of lexemes and context-dependant. The analyses on Polysemy should be made at sentence level. They adopt a descriptive approach toward the semantics of prepositional polysemy, which just puts emphasis on the function of prepositions in relation with other word classes and neglects the internal relationships among the complex meanings. In contrast, cognitive linguists take a different perspective. They focus on the prepositional polysemy. From their point of view, prepositional polysmy refers to the phenomenon whereby a single preposition is associated with a number of related but distinct meanings. Surrounding the core meaning, a semantic or polysemy network is formed. With this common belief, cognitive linguists have developed various research ways. Among them, the Principle Polysemy Approach proposed by Tyler and Evans (2001,2003) shows its advantage. After making an extensive investigation on previous researches, Tyler and Evans establish a set of terms including primary sense, proto-scene, distinct sense and cluster of sense. They define the primary sense of a spatial particle as the proto-scene and establish the well-motivated criteria for determining the proto-scene and distinct senses associated with a preposition. They take account of meaning construction as a process which relies upon conceptual integration of linguistic and non-linguistic prompts, guided by various global cognitive principles such as reconceptualization, inferencing strategies and pragmatic strengthening.
Inspired by the polysemy researches done within the framework of cognitive semantics , the author attempts to analyze the polysemy of through on the basis of Principle Polysemy Approach proposed by Tyler and Evans. The polysemy network of through can be described as: (1) the proto-scene associated with through denotes the spatial configuration that a trajectory (TR) traversed with a bounded landmark (LM) by the virtue of an entrance point and an end point. The functional configurance of the proto-scene is the notion of path, that is, contiguous locations along the LM; (2) the present study determines 10 distinct senses associated with the preposition through. Among them, six distinct senses belong to the A-B-C Trajectory Cluster; two distinct senses belong to the Up-to-the-end Cluster and the rest two belong to two quasi-clusters respectively; (3) the A-B-C Trajectory Cluster、the Up-to-the-end Cluster and two quasi-clusters, surrounding the proto-scene of through, consist of its polysemy network.
The significance of the present research lies in the following aspects: (1) even though some researchers have analyzed the preposition through, few have ever worked out a systematic semantic structure of it in the light of cognitive linguistics; (2) by adopting Tyler and Evans' Model of Principle Polysemy, the thesis further proves the feasibility of this cognitive model; (3) based on the analyses of polysemy network associated with through, the present research proposes a Central-peripheral Method for the teaching of prepositions in the hope of offering help to the teachers and students.
引文
Aronoff,M.1994.Morphology by itself:Stems and Inflectional Classes.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Brugman,C.1981.Story of Over.Berkeley,MA:University of California.
Brugman,C.& G,Lakoff.1988.Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks.In S.Small et al.(eds.),Lexical Ambiguity Resolution:Perspectives from Psycholinguistics,Neuropsychology,and Artificial Intelligence,477-508.San Mateo,CA:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,Inc.
Croft,W.1998.Linguistics evidence and mental representations.Cognitive Linguistics,9(2):151-174.
Cuyckens,H.& B.Zawada.2001.Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics:Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Conference,Amsterdam,1997.
Dewell,R.1994.Over again:image-schema transformation in semantic analysis.Cognitive Linguistics,5(4):351-380.
Ellis,H.C.& H.R.Reed.1993.Foundations of Cognitive Psychology.New York:the McGraw-Hill Companies.
Fauconnier,G.1994.Mental Spaces.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier,G.1997.Mappings in Thought and Language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grady,J.1997a.Foundations of meaning:primary metaphors and primary scenes.PhD dissertation,UC Berkeley.
Geeraerts,D.1997.Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts,D.1997b.THEORIES ARE BUILDING revisited.Cognitive Linguistics,4(4):267-90.
Hawkins,B.W.1984.The Semantics of English Spatial Prepositions.PhD dissertation,University of California at San Diego.
Hilferty,J.1999.Through as a means to metaphor.Cognitive Linguistics,347-365.
Hoad,T.F.2000.Oxford Concise Dictionary of Etymology.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hopper,P.& E.C.Traugott.1993.Grammaticalization.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Johnson,M.1987.The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning,Imagination,and Reason.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Kreitzer,A.1997.Multiple Levels of Schematization:A Study in the Conceptualization of Space.Cognitive Linguistics,8(4):291-235.
Krifka,M.2001.Non-novel Indefinites in Adverbial Quantification.In C.Condoravdi et al.(ed.),Logical Perspectives on Language and Information,1-40.Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Labov,W.1973.The boundaries of words and their meanings.In Bailey,C.J.& R.Shy(ed.),New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English,340-373.Washington:Georgetown University.
Lakoff,G.& M,Johnson.1980.Metaphors We Live By.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.& M,Johnson.1999.Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought.New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff,G.1987.Women,Fire,and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker,R.1987.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol.Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.1991a.Concept,Image and Symbol.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker,R.1991b.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol.Ⅱ:Descriptive Application.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.1999.Grammar and Conceptualization.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee.David A.1998.A tour through through.Journal of English Linguistics.Vol.26,Issue 4.
Levin,B.1993.Towards a Lexical Organization of English Verbs.Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mandler,J.1988.How to build a baby:on the development of an accessible representational system.Cognitive Development,3:113-36.
Mandler,J.1992.How to build a baby:conceptual primitives.Psychological Review,99:587-604.
Mandler,J.1996.Preverbal representation and language.In Bloom,P.et al.(ed.),Language and Space,365-84.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Nerlich,B.1992.Semantic Theories in Europe 1830-1930:From Etymology to Contextuality.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pustejovsky,J.1998.The Generative Lexicon.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Quirk,R.et al.1972.A Grammar of Contemporary English.London:Longman Group Limited.
Quirk,R.et al.1985.A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.London:Longman Group Limited.
Rosch,E.1975.Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experiential Psychology:General,104:192-233.
Sandra,D.and S,Rice.1985.Network analysis of prepositional meaning:mirroring whose mind-the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics,6(1):89-130.
Sandra,D.1998.What linguistics can't tell you about the human mind:a reply to Croft.Cognitive Linguistics,9(4):361-378.
Sperber,D.& D,Wilson.1995.Relevance:Communication and Cognition.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
Talmy,L.2000.Toward a Cognitive Semantics,Vol.Ⅰ:Concept Structuring Systems.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Talmy,L.2000.Toward a Cognitive Semantics,Vol.Ⅱ:Topology and Process in Concept Structuring.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Taylor,J.R.2001.Linguistic Categorization:Prototype in Linguistic Theory.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Taylor,J.R.2002.Cognitive Grammar.New York:Oxford University Press Inc.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2001.Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Network:The Case of Over.Language,77(4):724-765.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2002.Spatial Scenes:A Cognitive Approach to Prepositions and the Experimental Basis of Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2003.The Semantics of English Prepositions:Spatial Scenes,Embodied Meaning and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ullmann,S.1967.Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer,F.& H.J.Schmid.2001 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.London:Longman.
Vandeloise,C.1990.Representation,prototype and centrality.In Tsohatzidis,S.(ed.),Meanings and Prototypes:Studies in Linguistic Categorization,403-27.London:Routledge.
Vandeloise,C.1994.Methodology and analyses of the preposition in.Cognitive Linguistics,5(2):157-84.
Verspoor,M.& W.Lowie.2003.Making sense of polysemous words.Language Learning,3:547-586.
Wood,F.T.1970.English Prepositional Idioms.London:MacMillam.
蔡建平,1999,介词的认知语义研究,《外语与外语教学》第8期。
黄月华、白解红,2006,英语介词多义研究之我见—Over例析,《外语与外语教学》第11期。
陶文好,1998,几个方位介词TR对LM空间意义的影响,《外语与外语教学》第9期。
田兵,2003,多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野,《现代外语》第4期。
田兵,2004,《义项的区分与描写——关于多义词的认知语义学研究》,北京,科学出版社。
王寅,2003,《认知语言学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社。
于善志,2002,英语空间介词及其隐喻派生,《山东师范大学外国语学院学报》第1期。
张辉,1998,论空间概念在语言知识构建中的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
张辉、尹星,2005,《英语介词的语义学:空间场景、体验哲学与认知》评介,《现代外语》第1期。
Brugman,C.1981.Story of Over.Berkeley,MA:University of California.
Brugman,C.& G,Lakoff.1988.Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks.In S.Small et al.(eds.),Lexical Ambiguity Resolution:Perspectives from Psycholinguistics,Neuropsychology,and Artificial Intelligence,477-508.San Mateo,CA:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,Inc.
Croft,W.1998.Linguistics evidence and mental representations.Cognitive Linguistics,9(2):151-174.
Cuyckens,H.& B.Zawada.2001.Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics:Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Conference,Amsterdam,1997.
Dewell,R.1994.Over again:image-schema transformation in semantic analysis.Cognitive Linguistics,5(4):351-380.
Ellis,H.C.& H.R.Reed.1993.Foundations of Cognitive Psychology.New York:the McGraw-Hill Companies.
Fauconnier,G.1994.Mental Spaces.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier,G.1997.Mappings in Thought and Language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grady,J.1997a.Foundations of meaning:primary metaphors and primary scenes.PhD dissertation,UC Berkeley.
Geeraerts,D.1997.Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts,D.1997b.THEORIES ARE BUILDING revisited.Cognitive Linguistics,4(4):267-90.
Hawkins,B.W.1984.The Semantics of English Spatial Prepositions.PhD dissertation,University of California at San Diego.
Hilferty,J.1999.Through as a means to metaphor.Cognitive Linguistics,347-365.
Hoad,T.F.2000.Oxford Concise Dictionary of Etymology.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hopper,P.& E.C.Traugott.1993.Grammaticalization.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Johnson,M.1987.The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning,Imagination,and Reason.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Kreitzer,A.1997.Multiple Levels of Schematization:A Study in the Conceptualization of Space.Cognitive Linguistics,8(4):291-235.
Krifka,M.2001.Non-novel Indefinites in Adverbial Quantification.In C.Condoravdi et al.(ed.),Logical Perspectives on Language and Information,1-40.Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Labov,W.1973.The boundaries of words and their meanings.In Bailey,C.J.& R.Shy(ed.),New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English,340-373.Washington:Georgetown University.
Lakoff,G.& M,Johnson.1980.Metaphors We Live By.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff,G.& M,Johnson.1999.Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought.New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff,G.1987.Women,Fire,and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker,R.1987.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol.Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.1991a.Concept,Image and Symbol.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker,R.1991b.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol.Ⅱ:Descriptive Application.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker,R.1999.Grammar and Conceptualization.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee.David A.1998.A tour through through.Journal of English Linguistics.Vol.26,Issue 4.
Levin,B.1993.Towards a Lexical Organization of English Verbs.Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mandler,J.1988.How to build a baby:on the development of an accessible representational system.Cognitive Development,3:113-36.
Mandler,J.1992.How to build a baby:conceptual primitives.Psychological Review,99:587-604.
Mandler,J.1996.Preverbal representation and language.In Bloom,P.et al.(ed.),Language and Space,365-84.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Nerlich,B.1992.Semantic Theories in Europe 1830-1930:From Etymology to Contextuality.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pustejovsky,J.1998.The Generative Lexicon.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Quirk,R.et al.1972.A Grammar of Contemporary English.London:Longman Group Limited.
Quirk,R.et al.1985.A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.London:Longman Group Limited.
Rosch,E.1975.Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experiential Psychology:General,104:192-233.
Sandra,D.and S,Rice.1985.Network analysis of prepositional meaning:mirroring whose mind-the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics,6(1):89-130.
Sandra,D.1998.What linguistics can't tell you about the human mind:a reply to Croft.Cognitive Linguistics,9(4):361-378.
Sperber,D.& D,Wilson.1995.Relevance:Communication and Cognition.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
Talmy,L.2000.Toward a Cognitive Semantics,Vol.Ⅰ:Concept Structuring Systems.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Talmy,L.2000.Toward a Cognitive Semantics,Vol.Ⅱ:Topology and Process in Concept Structuring.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Taylor,J.R.2001.Linguistic Categorization:Prototype in Linguistic Theory.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Taylor,J.R.2002.Cognitive Grammar.New York:Oxford University Press Inc.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2001.Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Network:The Case of Over.Language,77(4):724-765.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2002.Spatial Scenes:A Cognitive Approach to Prepositions and the Experimental Basis of Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tyler A.& V,Evans.2003.The Semantics of English Prepositions:Spatial Scenes,Embodied Meaning and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ullmann,S.1967.Semantics:An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer,F.& H.J.Schmid.2001 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.London:Longman.
Vandeloise,C.1990.Representation,prototype and centrality.In Tsohatzidis,S.(ed.),Meanings and Prototypes:Studies in Linguistic Categorization,403-27.London:Routledge.
Vandeloise,C.1994.Methodology and analyses of the preposition in.Cognitive Linguistics,5(2):157-84.
Verspoor,M.& W.Lowie.2003.Making sense of polysemous words.Language Learning,3:547-586.
Wood,F.T.1970.English Prepositional Idioms.London:MacMillam.
蔡建平,1999,介词的认知语义研究,《外语与外语教学》第8期。
黄月华、白解红,2006,英语介词多义研究之我见—Over例析,《外语与外语教学》第11期。
陶文好,1998,几个方位介词TR对LM空间意义的影响,《外语与外语教学》第9期。
田兵,2003,多义词的认知语义框架与词典使用者的接受视野,《现代外语》第4期。
田兵,2004,《义项的区分与描写——关于多义词的认知语义学研究》,北京,科学出版社。
王寅,2003,《认知语言学》,上海,上海外语教育出版社。
于善志,2002,英语空间介词及其隐喻派生,《山东师范大学外国语学院学报》第1期。
张辉,1998,论空间概念在语言知识构建中的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
张辉、尹星,2005,《英语介词的语义学:空间场景、体验哲学与认知》评介,《现代外语》第1期。