语法隐喻的认知因素
|
摘要
从二十世纪六十年代起,隐喻的很多问题已经引起不同学派知名语言学家的关注。1980年,莱考夫和约翰逊又提出了认知隐喻理论。随后,隐喻成为语言学研究的热点话题。在这样的学术氛围中韩礼德提出了语法隐喻这一概念(为方便起见缩写为GM)并从功能语法的角度进行了详细而系统的论述。他关于语法隐喻的讨论标志着语法隐喻研究的真正开端。韩礼德的观点丰富了隐喻理论,并且为隐喻研究提供了一个全新的视角。然而,韩礼德的理论也存在一定的不足,尤其是其关于“一致性”的解释。
本文试图从认知的角度探讨“一致性”这一概念,进而揭示语法隐喻这一语言现象的本质,又进一步分析了概念隐喻,人际隐喻和语篇隐喻三类语法隐喻现象.
一致式与非一致式并行存在,说明两者之间肯定有内在的联系—一种认知机制促使一致式向非一致式转化.作者认为一致式是非一致式的认知参照点,也就是认知原型.虽然两者用不同的形式表达同一种意思,但是一致式的表达形式更接近对外界事物的描述,是说话人最熟悉的方式.非一致式是在一致式的基础上,通过语义范畴的扩展而产生的相对抽象的方式.因此一致式与非一致式的关系是原型与边缘的关系.作者还认为语法隐喻是一个很有弹性的空间,简单地说,有两种形式一种是一致式,另一种是非一致式是不合理的.语法隐喻是以原型为认知参照点隐喻程度不同的范畴.离原型越远,隐喻的效果更强.
同时,作者认为人们对事物属性意象的认识都来自与自身的经验,这也为原型的产生提供了依据.随着人类认知的发展,概念结构的组织受到了突显观和注意观的影响而产生了多种表达方式,体现在词汇语法层的这种变化就是语法隐喻.
本文采用了定性和定量相结合的方式,在阅读大量资料的基础上,深入分析创新出了一套语法隐喻生成过程的理论框架.在此基础上,提出了假设,并通过内省,演绎,问卷的方式使之得到了证实.
总之,基于对以往的隐喻研究的分析和评价的基础上,本篇论文从认知的角度对语法隐喻的理解作了一个全新的尝试,这对于英语教学具有重要意义。
From the sixties of the 20th century, significant linguistics belonging to different schools had paid attention to metaphorical problems. In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson put forward the theory of cognitive metaphors. From then on, metaphor has become the hot cake in linguistic studies. M.A.K.Halliday came up with his theory of grammatical metaphor (later the shortened form GM for convenience) in such academic atmosphere and elucidated GM systematically in great detail from the perspective of systematical grammatical metaphor. He greatly enriched the theory and presented a completely new angle but unsatisfying points still exists, especially his unclear and inefficient interpretation of the important concept "congruent", which is of great importance to the understanding of grammatical
The thesis made an attempt to explore the conception‘congruent’cognitively and further unpack the nature of GM. And gradually the exploration of the three kinds of GM: ideational metaphor, interpersonal metaphor and textual metaphor was followed.
Congruent form and incongruent form coexists, so there must be inner relationship between them and a cognitive mechanism which motivates the transference from congruent form to incongruent form. The author holds a view that congruent form acts as the cognitive reference point of incongruent form---that is prototype. Although they convey the same meaning with different forms, the former is a closer reflection of the reality of the world which is familiar to the listener or speaker, whereas the latter is a little abstract expression compared with congruent form, by means of category extension. Therefore, their relationship is a kind of category extension from prototype to periphery.
The author also maintains that the space of GM is elastic but not fixed. It is not reasonable to say that there are two simple alternatives, one is congruent form, the other is incongruent form, but the degree of GM ranges based on the prototype or the cognitive reference point. The prototype extends to peripheral or even continues to its marginal. The farther it is from prototype, the more intense the metaphorical effect is.
The ideology people have about the imagery or attributes of physical world comes from their experience .This assumption provides a cognitive ground for prototype theory .With the development of human being’s cognition, the structure and symbolization of conceptual content diversified accordingly because of the great influence of prominent view and attentional view. The variations at the lexicalgrammatical level are GM.
In this thesis, the author combines the two methods: quantitative and qualitative. Based on large quantity of data and deep analysis, an innovative theoretical framework is created. And then two hypotheses are proposed and are further proved positively by means of introspective, deductive and questionnaire.
All in all, based on the analysis and introspection of the past metaphorical study, a complete new attempt is made to explore GM from cognitive perspective which can be of great significance to English teaching.
本文试图从认知的角度探讨“一致性”这一概念,进而揭示语法隐喻这一语言现象的本质,又进一步分析了概念隐喻,人际隐喻和语篇隐喻三类语法隐喻现象.
一致式与非一致式并行存在,说明两者之间肯定有内在的联系—一种认知机制促使一致式向非一致式转化.作者认为一致式是非一致式的认知参照点,也就是认知原型.虽然两者用不同的形式表达同一种意思,但是一致式的表达形式更接近对外界事物的描述,是说话人最熟悉的方式.非一致式是在一致式的基础上,通过语义范畴的扩展而产生的相对抽象的方式.因此一致式与非一致式的关系是原型与边缘的关系.作者还认为语法隐喻是一个很有弹性的空间,简单地说,有两种形式一种是一致式,另一种是非一致式是不合理的.语法隐喻是以原型为认知参照点隐喻程度不同的范畴.离原型越远,隐喻的效果更强.
同时,作者认为人们对事物属性意象的认识都来自与自身的经验,这也为原型的产生提供了依据.随着人类认知的发展,概念结构的组织受到了突显观和注意观的影响而产生了多种表达方式,体现在词汇语法层的这种变化就是语法隐喻.
本文采用了定性和定量相结合的方式,在阅读大量资料的基础上,深入分析创新出了一套语法隐喻生成过程的理论框架.在此基础上,提出了假设,并通过内省,演绎,问卷的方式使之得到了证实.
总之,基于对以往的隐喻研究的分析和评价的基础上,本篇论文从认知的角度对语法隐喻的理解作了一个全新的尝试,这对于英语教学具有重要意义。
From the sixties of the 20th century, significant linguistics belonging to different schools had paid attention to metaphorical problems. In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson put forward the theory of cognitive metaphors. From then on, metaphor has become the hot cake in linguistic studies. M.A.K.Halliday came up with his theory of grammatical metaphor (later the shortened form GM for convenience) in such academic atmosphere and elucidated GM systematically in great detail from the perspective of systematical grammatical metaphor. He greatly enriched the theory and presented a completely new angle but unsatisfying points still exists, especially his unclear and inefficient interpretation of the important concept "congruent", which is of great importance to the understanding of grammatical
The thesis made an attempt to explore the conception‘congruent’cognitively and further unpack the nature of GM. And gradually the exploration of the three kinds of GM: ideational metaphor, interpersonal metaphor and textual metaphor was followed.
Congruent form and incongruent form coexists, so there must be inner relationship between them and a cognitive mechanism which motivates the transference from congruent form to incongruent form. The author holds a view that congruent form acts as the cognitive reference point of incongruent form---that is prototype. Although they convey the same meaning with different forms, the former is a closer reflection of the reality of the world which is familiar to the listener or speaker, whereas the latter is a little abstract expression compared with congruent form, by means of category extension. Therefore, their relationship is a kind of category extension from prototype to periphery.
The author also maintains that the space of GM is elastic but not fixed. It is not reasonable to say that there are two simple alternatives, one is congruent form, the other is incongruent form, but the degree of GM ranges based on the prototype or the cognitive reference point. The prototype extends to peripheral or even continues to its marginal. The farther it is from prototype, the more intense the metaphorical effect is.
The ideology people have about the imagery or attributes of physical world comes from their experience .This assumption provides a cognitive ground for prototype theory .With the development of human being’s cognition, the structure and symbolization of conceptual content diversified accordingly because of the great influence of prominent view and attentional view. The variations at the lexicalgrammatical level are GM.
In this thesis, the author combines the two methods: quantitative and qualitative. Based on large quantity of data and deep analysis, an innovative theoretical framework is created. And then two hypotheses are proposed and are further proved positively by means of introspective, deductive and questionnaire.
All in all, based on the analysis and introspection of the past metaphorical study, a complete new attempt is made to explore GM from cognitive perspective which can be of great significance to English teaching.
引文
[1] HALLIDAY , M . A . K . An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward and Arnold,1985:320-325.
[2] HALLIDAY,M.A. K. An introduction to functional grammar [M].Beijing:the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[3] LAKOFF G and JOHNSON M. Metaphors We Live by [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[4]胡壮麟.评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(2):88-94.
[5] MARTIN,L.R. English Text System and Structure [M].Philadelphia/ Amsterdam:John Benjamin, 1992.
[6] ANDREW Goatly . The language of metaphors [M] .London/New York:Routlodge, 1998.
[7] UNGERER .F&SCHMID.H.J.An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001: 62-65.
[8] LANGACKER, R.W.Concept,Image and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyere,1990.
[9] LAKOFF George. Women,Fire,and Dangerous Thing [M] .Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987:56-57.
[10] ROSCH& ELEANOR and CAROLINE. B.MERVIS,‘Family Resemblance:Studies in the internal structure or categories’Cognitive Psychology. 1975:573-605.
[11] ROSCH,E.Natural Categories [M].Cognitive Psychology,1973:328-350.
[12] ROSCH E. Principles of Categorization [M]// Rosch &Lloyd. Cognition and Categorization.New York:Halsted Press,1978: 33-34.
[13] GEORGE Lakoff . The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[G] . // A. Ortony.Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press,1993:110-117.
[14] JOHN Taylor. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory [M].Oxford:Claredon Press, 1995.
[15]范文芳.Systematic-Functional Approach to Grammatical Metaphor,doctoral thesis.1997:99-108.
[16] TAYLOR, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003(4):29-30.
[17] LIU Zhengguang,CUIGANG. Grammatical Prototype and Transitivity [J].Foreign Language and Their Teaching,2005(1):8-12.
[18] THOMAS Mann. A Guide to Library Research Methods [M].Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1887.
[19] ZIPF , G . K . Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M].Cambridge, MA,1996:8-10.
[20] LAKOFF & JOHNSON.Philosophy in the flesh The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to the Western Thought [M].London: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[21] LANGACKER Ronald W.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:Volume1:Theoretical Prerequisites [M].Stanford: Stanford University Press,1987:231-232.
[22] ALFORD,JOHN A.The grammatical metaphor:a survey of its use in the Middle Ages [M].SPECULUM 57,1982:4.
[23]胡壮麟.语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1996,4):3-9-82.
[24]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海教育出版社,2001:72-79.
[25] HALLIDAY, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2ndedn) [M].London: Edward Arnold,1994.
[26]范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
[27] RAVELLI , L . Grammatical Metaphor : an initial analysis [A ] In E.H.Steiner (eds.) Pragmatics, Discourse and Text [C ] Norwood,N.J.Ablex,1998.
[28] MATTHIESSEN, C:Interpreting the textual metafunction [A]. In M. Davis & L.Ravelli (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics [C]. London: Printer Publishers, 1992.
[29] ZHU Yongsheng& YAN Shiqing. The Theoretical Base and Contribution of the Grammatical Metaphor [J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research (bimonthly), 2000, (2):30-33.
[30] HALLIDAY , M . A . K . An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M].London: Edward Arnold,1994.
[31]严世清.隐喻论[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,2001:32.
[32] MARTIN, J.R. Nominalization in science and humanities:distillingknowledge and scaffolding text. In Eija Ventola (eds.) Trends in linguistics:Functional and systemic linguistics [M] . New York : Mouton de Gruyter. 1991:243-280.
[33]胡壮麟.语言.认知.隐喻[J].现代外语, 1997,(4):52-59.
[34]王寅.LAKOFF和JOHNSON笔下的认知语言学[J].外国语, 2001 (4):15-21.
[35] CRAIK, FENNETH. The Nature of Exploration [M].Cambridge, England,Cambridge University Press:1943.
[36] JOHNSON-LAIRD P.N.Mental Models towards a Cognitive Science of Language [M] .Cambridge MA Harvard University Press, 1983.
[37] MORMAN, DONALD A.Some Observation on Mental Model. In Gentner,Dedre and Stevens,Albert .L“Mental Models”,1983.
[38] JOHNSON-LAIRD P. N.Mental models in Cognitive Science [M].Cognitive Science,1980:4.
[39] HOLLAND , J. H, HOLYOAK , K. J. Nisbett ,R. E, Thagard,P . R . Introduction : Processes of Inference , Learning and Discovery[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT.Press, 1980.
[40]徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[ J].外国语,993a, 6):13-20.
[41]徐盛桓.论常规关系[J].外国语,1993b,(6):82.
[42]徐盛桓.常规关系与认知化[ J].外国语,2002 (1).
[43] HALLIDAY, M.A.K& C.MATTHIESSEN. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition [M].London:printer publishers:1992.
[44] YAN Shiqing . The Theoretical Development and Significance of Grammatical Metaphor [J]. Journal of Foreign Language,2003,(3):55-57.
[45] FAUCONNIER, G.Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M] .New York:Cambridge,University Press,1995.
[46] FILLMORE,C.An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1982:123-131.
[2] HALLIDAY,M.A. K. An introduction to functional grammar [M].Beijing:the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[3] LAKOFF G and JOHNSON M. Metaphors We Live by [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[4]胡壮麟.评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(2):88-94.
[5] MARTIN,L.R. English Text System and Structure [M].Philadelphia/ Amsterdam:John Benjamin, 1992.
[6] ANDREW Goatly . The language of metaphors [M] .London/New York:Routlodge, 1998.
[7] UNGERER .F&SCHMID.H.J.An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001: 62-65.
[8] LANGACKER, R.W.Concept,Image and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyere,1990.
[9] LAKOFF George. Women,Fire,and Dangerous Thing [M] .Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987:56-57.
[10] ROSCH& ELEANOR and CAROLINE. B.MERVIS,‘Family Resemblance:Studies in the internal structure or categories’Cognitive Psychology. 1975:573-605.
[11] ROSCH,E.Natural Categories [M].Cognitive Psychology,1973:328-350.
[12] ROSCH E. Principles of Categorization [M]// Rosch &Lloyd. Cognition and Categorization.New York:Halsted Press,1978: 33-34.
[13] GEORGE Lakoff . The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor[G] . // A. Ortony.Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press,1993:110-117.
[14] JOHN Taylor. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory [M].Oxford:Claredon Press, 1995.
[15]范文芳.Systematic-Functional Approach to Grammatical Metaphor,doctoral thesis.1997:99-108.
[16] TAYLOR, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003(4):29-30.
[17] LIU Zhengguang,CUIGANG. Grammatical Prototype and Transitivity [J].Foreign Language and Their Teaching,2005(1):8-12.
[18] THOMAS Mann. A Guide to Library Research Methods [M].Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1887.
[19] ZIPF , G . K . Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [M].Cambridge, MA,1996:8-10.
[20] LAKOFF & JOHNSON.Philosophy in the flesh The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to the Western Thought [M].London: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[21] LANGACKER Ronald W.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:Volume1:Theoretical Prerequisites [M].Stanford: Stanford University Press,1987:231-232.
[22] ALFORD,JOHN A.The grammatical metaphor:a survey of its use in the Middle Ages [M].SPECULUM 57,1982:4.
[23]胡壮麟.语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,1996,4):3-9-82.
[24]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海教育出版社,2001:72-79.
[25] HALLIDAY, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2ndedn) [M].London: Edward Arnold,1994.
[26]范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
[27] RAVELLI , L . Grammatical Metaphor : an initial analysis [A ] In E.H.Steiner (eds.) Pragmatics, Discourse and Text [C ] Norwood,N.J.Ablex,1998.
[28] MATTHIESSEN, C:Interpreting the textual metafunction [A]. In M. Davis & L.Ravelli (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics [C]. London: Printer Publishers, 1992.
[29] ZHU Yongsheng& YAN Shiqing. The Theoretical Base and Contribution of the Grammatical Metaphor [J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research (bimonthly), 2000, (2):30-33.
[30] HALLIDAY , M . A . K . An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M].London: Edward Arnold,1994.
[31]严世清.隐喻论[M].苏州:苏州大学出版社,2001:32.
[32] MARTIN, J.R. Nominalization in science and humanities:distillingknowledge and scaffolding text. In Eija Ventola (eds.) Trends in linguistics:Functional and systemic linguistics [M] . New York : Mouton de Gruyter. 1991:243-280.
[33]胡壮麟.语言.认知.隐喻[J].现代外语, 1997,(4):52-59.
[34]王寅.LAKOFF和JOHNSON笔下的认知语言学[J].外国语, 2001 (4):15-21.
[35] CRAIK, FENNETH. The Nature of Exploration [M].Cambridge, England,Cambridge University Press:1943.
[36] JOHNSON-LAIRD P.N.Mental Models towards a Cognitive Science of Language [M] .Cambridge MA Harvard University Press, 1983.
[37] MORMAN, DONALD A.Some Observation on Mental Model. In Gentner,Dedre and Stevens,Albert .L“Mental Models”,1983.
[38] JOHNSON-LAIRD P. N.Mental models in Cognitive Science [M].Cognitive Science,1980:4.
[39] HOLLAND , J. H, HOLYOAK , K. J. Nisbett ,R. E, Thagard,P . R . Introduction : Processes of Inference , Learning and Discovery[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT.Press, 1980.
[40]徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[ J].外国语,993a, 6):13-20.
[41]徐盛桓.论常规关系[J].外国语,1993b,(6):82.
[42]徐盛桓.常规关系与认知化[ J].外国语,2002 (1).
[43] HALLIDAY, M.A.K& C.MATTHIESSEN. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition [M].London:printer publishers:1992.
[44] YAN Shiqing . The Theoretical Development and Significance of Grammatical Metaphor [J]. Journal of Foreign Language,2003,(3):55-57.
[45] FAUCONNIER, G.Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M] .New York:Cambridge,University Press,1995.
[46] FILLMORE,C.An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1982:123-131.