英语反义关系及修辞应用语言学研究
|
摘要
本文主要从语言学和修辞学两大方面研究英语中反义关系的语义特征及其在修辞中的应用。
对反义关系的界定向来没有定论。传统反义关系理论以词根和派生为依据，将反义词划分为词根反义词和派生反义词。现代语言学家从词汇意义出发，对语义对立关系进行分类，但将反义关系狭义的定义为可分级词之间的对立关系，而排除其他语义对立关系，如互补关系和换位关系。这种过于严格的定义不利于反义关系存在于大量自然语言中这一事实的研究。本文认为词与词之间只要存在较强的语义对立，并且具有共同的语义应用范围都可以构成反义词。反义关系具有其独特鲜明的语义特征，如双分性、固有性和显著性等。
尽管有些语言学家将反义关系看作是对立关系的一种，为了更好的研究反义关系在修辞中的应用，反义词从广义上等同于对立词。本文将不同类型对立关系所呈现的语义特征一一分析，具体分析了可分级对立词(相对反义词)的特征如比较性、偏袒性和标记性。为了更好理解反义关系的本质，本文也对存在一定程度语义对立(近似对立关系)的词对进行分析。
作为一种重要的语义关系，反义关系大量运用于语言实践，往往是为了获得某种修辞效果。其中，既有对立一方的修辞运用，也有双方共现时的修辞应用(包括语义正常现象和语义异常现象)。针对反义词对共现的频率更高，本文具体分析了这种情况出现的心理学和哲学基础，以及共现的结构模式。
反义关系与英语成语和修辞手段的构成有着密切联系。其修辞效果主要是增强话语的表现力和幽默讽刺。而这一效果能够实现的根本原因在于其运行原理，即通过推导会话隐含意义，揭示事物表层对立达到深层统一，实质上并没有破坏对话合作原则。
This dissertation is a study of antonymy in English from linguistic and rhetorical approaches, especially its semantic features and rhetorical application.
There is no consensus about the defining of antonymy. Traditional view classifies antonyms into root antonyms and derivational antonyms from morphological point of view. With more semantic than morphological concern, modern linguists categorize opposites into various types, but the term antonym is narrowed only to refer to gradable opposites, excluding other types of opposites such as complementaries and converse terms, etc. The too strict sense goes against the fact that antonymy is commonly used in natural languages. This study holds that the term antonym is to include various types of opposites, (i.e., antonyms in a wider sense) on the condition that the two words are semantically contrasted and have shared semantic range. Antonymy possesses several unique properties such as binarity, inherentness and patency.
Although antonymy is considered as a kind of opposition by some linguists, in order to study antonymy in rhetorical use, antonyms are equal to opposites in a wider sense. The properties of various opposites are explored in detail with reference to their semantic characteristics, with emphasis paid on gradable opposite and its properties like comparison, committedness and markedness. In order to have a better understanding of the nature of antonymy, near-opposites which do contrast in some way but are not considered true antonyms are also examined.
As an important semantic relation, antonymy is often rhetorically used in the practice of language. There is the use of only one member rhetorically, but more often seen is the co-occurrence of both members of an antonym pair used either literally (semantically normal) or figuratively (semantically abnormal). The bases of the co-occurrence are explored psychologically and philosophically, and the syntactic frames of the co-occurrence are observed. Antonymy is closely associated with the forming of idioms and figures of speech to achieve rhetorical effect such as expressiveness, forcefulness, humor, and sarcasm. What makes it possible for the rhetorical effect to be felt is the rationale for the working mechanism of antonymy. By human inference arrives the deep unity through sorts of superficial opposition.
对反义关系的界定向来没有定论。传统反义关系理论以词根和派生为依据，将反义词划分为词根反义词和派生反义词。现代语言学家从词汇意义出发，对语义对立关系进行分类，但将反义关系狭义的定义为可分级词之间的对立关系，而排除其他语义对立关系，如互补关系和换位关系。这种过于严格的定义不利于反义关系存在于大量自然语言中这一事实的研究。本文认为词与词之间只要存在较强的语义对立，并且具有共同的语义应用范围都可以构成反义词。反义关系具有其独特鲜明的语义特征，如双分性、固有性和显著性等。
尽管有些语言学家将反义关系看作是对立关系的一种，为了更好的研究反义关系在修辞中的应用，反义词从广义上等同于对立词。本文将不同类型对立关系所呈现的语义特征一一分析，具体分析了可分级对立词(相对反义词)的特征如比较性、偏袒性和标记性。为了更好理解反义关系的本质，本文也对存在一定程度语义对立(近似对立关系)的词对进行分析。
作为一种重要的语义关系，反义关系大量运用于语言实践，往往是为了获得某种修辞效果。其中，既有对立一方的修辞运用，也有双方共现时的修辞应用(包括语义正常现象和语义异常现象)。针对反义词对共现的频率更高，本文具体分析了这种情况出现的心理学和哲学基础，以及共现的结构模式。
反义关系与英语成语和修辞手段的构成有着密切联系。其修辞效果主要是增强话语的表现力和幽默讽刺。而这一效果能够实现的根本原因在于其运行原理，即通过推导会话隐含意义，揭示事物表层对立达到深层统一，实质上并没有破坏对话合作原则。
This dissertation is a study of antonymy in English from linguistic and rhetorical approaches, especially its semantic features and rhetorical application.
There is no consensus about the defining of antonymy. Traditional view classifies antonyms into root antonyms and derivational antonyms from morphological point of view. With more semantic than morphological concern, modern linguists categorize opposites into various types, but the term antonym is narrowed only to refer to gradable opposites, excluding other types of opposites such as complementaries and converse terms, etc. The too strict sense goes against the fact that antonymy is commonly used in natural languages. This study holds that the term antonym is to include various types of opposites, (i.e., antonyms in a wider sense) on the condition that the two words are semantically contrasted and have shared semantic range. Antonymy possesses several unique properties such as binarity, inherentness and patency.
Although antonymy is considered as a kind of opposition by some linguists, in order to study antonymy in rhetorical use, antonyms are equal to opposites in a wider sense. The properties of various opposites are explored in detail with reference to their semantic characteristics, with emphasis paid on gradable opposite and its properties like comparison, committedness and markedness. In order to have a better understanding of the nature of antonymy, near-opposites which do contrast in some way but are not considered true antonyms are also examined.
As an important semantic relation, antonymy is often rhetorically used in the practice of language. There is the use of only one member rhetorically, but more often seen is the co-occurrence of both members of an antonym pair used either literally (semantically normal) or figuratively (semantically abnormal). The bases of the co-occurrence are explored psychologically and philosophically, and the syntactic frames of the co-occurrence are observed. Antonymy is closely associated with the forming of idioms and figures of speech to achieve rhetorical effect such as expressiveness, forcefulness, humor, and sarcasm. What makes it possible for the rhetorical effect to be felt is the rationale for the working mechanism of antonymy. By human inference arrives the deep unity through sorts of superficial opposition.
引文
Bolinger, Dwight. Adjectives .in English: Attribution and Predication [J]. Lingua, 1967(18): 1-34.
Cruse, D. A. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Cruse, D. A. Meaning in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Deese, James. The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought [M]. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
Egan, R.F. Survey of the History of English Synonymy. In Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms, ed. P.B. Gove, 5a-31a. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1968.
Fellbaum, Christine. Co-occurrence and Antonymy [J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 1995(8): 281-303.
Grice, G. P. Logic and Conversation [J]. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975:41-58.
Gross, Derek, Ute Fischer and George A. Miller. Antonymy and the Representation of Adjectival
Meanings [J]. Cognitive science laboratory report 13, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University, 1988.
Jackson, H. Words and Their Meaning [M]. London: Longman Inc.
Jones, S.Antonymy:A Corpus-based Perspective [M]. Bodmin: MPG Books Ltd, 2002.
Justeson, John S. and Slava M. Katz. Co-occurrences of Antonymous Adjectives and Their Contexts [J]. Computational Linguistics, 1991(17):1-19.
Justeson, John S. and Slava M. Katz. Redefining Antonymy: The textual Structure of a Semantic Relation [J]. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1992(7):176-184.
Kagan, J. The Nature of the Child [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
Kempson, R. M. Semantic Theory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986,
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1983.
Leech, Geoffrey. Semantics [M]. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
Lehrer, Adrienne. Markedness and Antonym. [J]. Linguistics, 1985(21): 397-429.
Lehrer, Adrienne and K. Lehrer.Antonymy[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1982(5): 483-501.
Levinson S.C. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2001.
Lyons, J. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1968.
Lyons, J. Linguistic semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Lyons, J. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Miller, George, ed. WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database [J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 1990(3): 235-312.
Miller, George and Christine Fellbaum. Semantic Networks of English [J]. Cognition, 1991(41): 197-229.
Muehleisen, V. L. Antonymy and Semantic Range in English [M]. Northwestern University, 1997.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Palmer, P. R. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Pyles, Thomas and Algeo, John. English: An Introduction to Language. [M]. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970.
杜慧颖．试析英语反义词对中的标记性[J]．解放军外国语学院学报，2000(2)．
段汉武．英语中的反义词和反义关系刍议[J]．解放军外国语学院学报，1999(3)．
范家材．英语修辞赏析[M]．上海：上海交通大学出版社，1992．
冯翠华．英语修辞大全[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1995．
顾明栋．Oxymoron的内在联系及理解[J]．外语教学与研究，1985(1)：1—3．
胡曙中．英语修辞学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
廖綵胜，黄远振．论反义关系在英语中的地位[J]．外语学刊，1992(4)．
林承章．英语词汇学引论[M]．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1987．
林汝昌，李曼珏．语义的对比关系和对立关系[J]．外语教学与研究，1987(2)．
刘宜平．论反义关系在英语修辞中的作用[J]．福建外语，1994(1)：49—55．
陆国强．现代英语词汇学[M]．第二版．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
倪乃千．反义词的语义对立[J]．中国俄语教学，1992(4)．
沈家煊．不对称与标记论[M]．江西：江西教育出版社，1999．
束定芳．现代语义学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
汪榕培．英语词汇学研究[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
汪榕培．英语词汇学高级教程[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
汪榕培、卢晓娟．英语词汇学教程[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
王立非．英语反义形容词的语义标记研究[J]．外语研究，1994(2)．
王文斌．英语词汇语义学[M]．杭州：浙江教育出版社， 2001．
谢祖军．英语修辞[M]．北京：机械工业出版社，1988．
张建理．标记性与反义词[J]．外国语，1999(3)．
张维友．英语词汇学教程[M]．武汉：华中师范大学出版社，1997．
张韵斐．现代英语词汇学概况[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，1987．
Cruse, D. A. Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Cruse, D. A. Meaning in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Deese, James. The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought [M]. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
Egan, R.F. Survey of the History of English Synonymy. In Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms, ed. P.B. Gove, 5a-31a. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1968.
Fellbaum, Christine. Co-occurrence and Antonymy [J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 1995(8): 281-303.
Grice, G. P. Logic and Conversation [J]. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975:41-58.
Gross, Derek, Ute Fischer and George A. Miller. Antonymy and the Representation of Adjectival
Meanings [J]. Cognitive science laboratory report 13, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University, 1988.
Jackson, H. Words and Their Meaning [M]. London: Longman Inc.
Jones, S.Antonymy:A Corpus-based Perspective [M]. Bodmin: MPG Books Ltd, 2002.
Justeson, John S. and Slava M. Katz. Co-occurrences of Antonymous Adjectives and Their Contexts [J]. Computational Linguistics, 1991(17):1-19.
Justeson, John S. and Slava M. Katz. Redefining Antonymy: The textual Structure of a Semantic Relation [J]. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1992(7):176-184.
Kagan, J. The Nature of the Child [M]. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
Kempson, R. M. Semantic Theory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986,
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1983.
Leech, Geoffrey. Semantics [M]. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
Lehrer, Adrienne. Markedness and Antonym. [J]. Linguistics, 1985(21): 397-429.
Lehrer, Adrienne and K. Lehrer.Antonymy[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1982(5): 483-501.
Levinson S.C. Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2001.
Lyons, J. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1968.
Lyons, J. Linguistic semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Lyons, J. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Miller, George, ed. WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database [J]. International Journal of Lexicography, 1990(3): 235-312.
Miller, George and Christine Fellbaum. Semantic Networks of English [J]. Cognition, 1991(41): 197-229.
Muehleisen, V. L. Antonymy and Semantic Range in English [M]. Northwestern University, 1997.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Palmer, P. R. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Pyles, Thomas and Algeo, John. English: An Introduction to Language. [M]. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970.
杜慧颖．试析英语反义词对中的标记性[J]．解放军外国语学院学报，2000(2)．
段汉武．英语中的反义词和反义关系刍议[J]．解放军外国语学院学报，1999(3)．
范家材．英语修辞赏析[M]．上海：上海交通大学出版社，1992．
冯翠华．英语修辞大全[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1995．
顾明栋．Oxymoron的内在联系及理解[J]．外语教学与研究，1985(1)：1—3．
胡曙中．英语修辞学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
廖綵胜，黄远振．论反义关系在英语中的地位[J]．外语学刊，1992(4)．
林承章．英语词汇学引论[M]．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1987．
林汝昌，李曼珏．语义的对比关系和对立关系[J]．外语教学与研究，1987(2)．
刘宜平．论反义关系在英语修辞中的作用[J]．福建外语，1994(1)：49—55．
陆国强．现代英语词汇学[M]．第二版．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
倪乃千．反义词的语义对立[J]．中国俄语教学，1992(4)．
沈家煊．不对称与标记论[M]．江西：江西教育出版社，1999．
束定芳．现代语义学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
汪榕培．英语词汇学研究[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
汪榕培．英语词汇学高级教程[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
汪榕培、卢晓娟．英语词汇学教程[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
王立非．英语反义形容词的语义标记研究[J]．外语研究，1994(2)．
王文斌．英语词汇语义学[M]．杭州：浙江教育出版社， 2001．
谢祖军．英语修辞[M]．北京：机械工业出版社，1988．
张建理．标记性与反义词[J]．外国语，1999(3)．
张维友．英语词汇学教程[M]．武汉：华中师范大学出版社，1997．
张韵斐．现代英语词汇学概况[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，1987．