摘要
多义词是指一个语言形式有多种具有相互联系的意义的语言现象。多义词具有任意性还是理据性?这里所谓的任意性是指语言符号与所指之间的关系是任意的，无依据可寻的；所谓的理据性是指语言符号与所指之间的关系反应了人的认知结构和人类所从事的活动。
索绪尔的任意说在语言学和语言哲学一直占有重要的位置，以此为基础，出现了结构主义的思想。传统方法(主要是结构主义)在研究多义词多项意义之间联系时，局限于语言的内部结构，从语境、心理的角度来讨论多义词，忽略了语言的外部因素，如人类的认知手段、生活体验等等，认为多义词不过是语言的巧合现象，因此没有把握多义词的全部和本质，无法完整地、令人信服地解释这一语言现象。
既然语言符号的任意性不能完整地解释多义词，那么我们可以通过语言和外部世界的关系来研究多义词，即多义词具有一定的理据性。认知科学的发展使我们可以突破结构主义的樊篱，从语言的外部世界，即从人类言语活动的主体在客观世界的活动来解释一词多义形成的原因。本文以体验主义为哲学基础，结合当代的认知学理论，在类典型模式下，对多义词进行了分析，认为多义词是通过人类认知手段，如隐喻、转喻，由一个词的中心意义或基本意义向其他意义延伸的过程，是人类认知范畴和概念化的结果，有其一定的理据性。本研究旨在说明任意性不是语言符号的唯一特性；语言是人类在客观世界中实践的产物；从某种意义来说，语言理据性是对索绪尔任意说的补充。
The multiplicity of meanings of a word constitutes the category of polysemy. Is polysemy arbitrary or motivated? By "arbitrary" here is meant that the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary without any evidence of motivation. By "motivated' here is meant that the language sign reflects human cognitive structure and his interaction with the world.
Saussure's theory of arbitrariness has occupied the predominant position in linguistics. It forms the basis for structuralism. In the traditional approach (structuralism), the researches on the relationship of different senses of a polysemous word are confined to the internal structure of language. They discuss polysemy from the perspective of context and psychology, ignoring the external elements of language, such as human cognitive devices, his experience in the world, and so on, and come to a conclusion that polysemy is nothing but linguistic coincidence. Therefore, the traditional researches haven't revealed all the facts of polysemy or grasped the essence of it and can't explain the linguistic phenomenon of polysemy completely and convincingly.
Since arbitrariness of the language sign can't offer a satisfactory answer to polysemy, it is assumed that we can probably make a research on polysemy through the relationship between language and world. That's to say, there is evidence for the motivation of polysemy. The development of cognitive science helps us break through the fence of structuralism and explain the motivation for the multiplicity of meanings of
a polysemous word from the external world------from the human subjective interaction
with the objective world. Based on experientialism and combined with modern cognitive theories, the thesis makes a tentative study on polysemy in the prototype model and comes to a conclusion that polysemy is the process of the extension to the other senses from the core or basic sense by the means of cognitive devices, such as metonymy and metaphor, and the result of human cognitive categorization and conceptualization. Polysemy is well-motivated. The significance of the thesis is that the arbitrariness is not the unique characteristic of the language sign. Language is the product of human's interaction with the world. To some extent, the motivation of the language sign is a strong complement to the theory of arbitrariness.
引文
[1] Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Tr. By Wade Baskin. London: Peter Owen Limited, 1916.
[2] Radman, Zdravko. Metaphor: Figures of the Mind[M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
[3] Ullmann, S. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. New York: A Barnes & Noble Paperback, 1979.
[4] Heine, Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar[M]. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[5] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987a.
[6] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphor We Live by[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[7] Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jorg Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London & New York: Longman, 1996.
[8] Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[9] Peeters, Bert. The Lexicon-encyclopedia Interface[C]. Amsterdam New York:Elsevier, 2000.
[10] Sapir, E. Language[M]. New York: Harcourt, 1921.
[11] Hockett, Charles. The Origin of Language[J]. Scientific American: 203, 88-96.
[12] Chomsky, N. Language and Mind[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972.
[13] Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce 8VOL[C]. ed. by C. Hartsborne P. Weiss & A. W. Burks. Cambridge: MA, 1931-58.
[14] Haiman, John. Natural Syntax[M]. London & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[15] 许国璋．语言符号的任意性——语言哲学探索之一[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1988(3)，2-9．
[16] Ravin, Yael & Claudia Leacock. Polysemy——Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[17] Lyons, John.. Semantics(Ⅰ) [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
[18] Leech, G. Semantics[M]. Richard Clay(The Chaucer Press) Ltd., 1981.
[19] Palmer, F. R. Semantics[M]. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[20] Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pramgmatics—Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[21] Brugman, Claudia Marlea. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
[22] Greeraets, Dirk. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
[23] 严世清．隐喻论 (英) [M]．苏州：苏州大学出版社，2000．
[24] Rosch. E. Principles of Categorization. In Erosch and B. B. Lloyd(eds.) Cognition and Categorization[C]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978: 27-48.
[25] Greeraets, Dirk. Introduction: Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory. Linguistics 27: 587-612.
[26] Albertazzi, Liliana. Meaning and Cognition[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.
[27] Langacker R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Ⅰ: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[28] Saeed, John I. Semantics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000.
[29] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor In: Ortony(1993): 202-251.
[30] Lakoff,G. & Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989.
[1] Allwood, Jens & Peter Gardenfors. Cognitive Semantics Meaning and Cognition[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
[2] Asher, R. E. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics[C]. Oxford: Pregamon Press, 1994.
[3] Baghramian, Maria. Modern Philosophy of Language[C]. J. M. Dent, 1998.
[4] Barcelona, Antonio. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective[C]. Belin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
[5] Blank, Andreas et al. Historical Semantics and Cognition[C]. Belin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[6] Brugman, Claudia Marlea. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
[7] Chapman, Siobhan. Philosophy for Lingists: An Introduction[C]. London & New York: Routledge, 2000.
[8] Coleman, Julie & Christian J. Kay. Lexicology, Semantics and Lexicography[C]. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.
[9] Devit, Michael & Kim Sterelny. Language & Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language[M]. Basil Blackwell, 1987.
[10] Dinneen, Francis P. General Linguistics[M]. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1995.
[11] Dirven, Rene and Marjolijn Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998.
[12] Frawley, William. Linguistic Semantics[M]. New Jersy & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1992.
[13] Gaskin, Richard. Grammar in Early Twentieth-century Philosophy [C]. London & New York: Routledge, 2001.
[14] Goatly, Andrew. The Language of Metaphors[M]. London & New York. Routledge, 1997.
[15] Greeraets, Dirk. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology
[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
[16] Haiman, John. Natural Syntax[M]. London & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[17] Heine, Bernd. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar[M]. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[18] Hu Zhuanglin et al. Linguistics: a Course Book[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 1988.
[19] Janssen, Theo & Gisela Redeker. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology[C]. Belin &New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[20] King, Barbara J. The Origins of Language: What Non-human Primates Can Tell Us[C]. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1999.
[21] Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphor We Live by[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[22] Langacker R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Ⅰ: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[23] Leech, G. Semantics[M]. Richard Clay(The Chaucer Press) Ltd., 1981.
[24] Lyons, John. Semantics (Ⅰ) [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
[25] Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[26] Palmer, F. R. Semantics[M]. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[27] Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Gunter Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
[28] Quirk, Randolph. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M]. Longman Group Limited, 1985.
[29] Radman, Zdravko. Metaphor: Figures of the Mind[M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
[30] Ravin, Yael & Claudia Leacock. Polysemy—Theoretical and Computational Approaches[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[31] Ruthrof, Horst. The Body in Language[M]. London &New York: Cassell, 2000.
[32] Saeed, John Ⅰ. Semantics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000.
[33] Sapir, E. Language[M]. New York: Harcourt, 1921.
[34] Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Tr. By Wade Baskin. London: Peter Owen Limited, 1916.
[35] Stadler Leon de & Christoph Eyrich. Issues in Cognitive Linguistics—1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference[C]. Belin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
[36] Sweetser, Eve. From Etymology to Pramgmatics—Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[37] Taub, Sarah F. Language from the Body—Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language[M]. London &New York: Combridge University Press, 2001.
[38] Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[39] Tsohatzidis, S.L.Meanings and Prototypes Studies in Linguistic Categorization[C]. London & New York: Routledge, 1990.
[40] Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jorg Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London & New York: Longman, 1996.
[41] Ullmann, S.Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[M]. New York: A Barnes & Noble Paperback, 1979.
[42] Violi, Patrizia. Meaning and Experience[M]. Indiana University Press, 2001.
[43] 陈维振．有关范畴本质的认识——从“客观主义”到“经验现实主义”[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2002，(1)．
[44] 范文芳，汪明杰．对索绪尔有关语言符号任意性的再思考[J]．《外语教学》，2002，(3)．
[45] 廖秋忠．《语言的范畴化：语言学理论中的典型》评介[J]．《国外语言学》，1991，(4)．
[46] 陆国强．现代英语词汇学[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1983．
[47] 林书武．国外隐喻研究综述[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1997，(1)．
[48] 贾中恒，朱亚军．Peirce的符号学三元观[J]．《外语研究》，2002，(3)．
[49] 戚雨村．现代语言学的特点和发展趋势[C]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997．
[50] 张韵斐．现代英语词汇学概论[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，1986．
[51] 沈家煊．句法的象似性问题[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1993，(1)．
[52] 沈家煊．R. W. Langacker 的认知语法[J]．《国外语言学》，1994，(1)．
[53] 束定芳．隐喻学研究[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
[54] 涂纪亮．现代西方语言学哲学比较研穷[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1996．
[55] 王德春．论语言单位的任意性和理据性[J]．《外国语》，2001，(1)．
[56] 王寅．论语言符号象似性[J]．北京：新华出版社，1999．
[57] 伍谦光．语义学导论[J]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988．
[58] 许国璋．语言符号的任意性——语言哲学探索之一[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1988，(3)．
[59] 谢之君．隐喻：从修辞格到认知[J]．《外语与外语教学》，2000，(3)．
[60] 杨忠，张绍杰．认知语言学中的类典型论[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1998，(2)．
[61] 严辰松．语言理据探究[J]．《解放军外国语学院学报》，2000，(6)．
[62] 严世清．隐喻论(英)[M]．苏州：苏州大学出版社，2000．
[63] 袁毓林．认知科学背景上的语言研究[J]．《国外语言学》，1996，(2)．
[64] 赵艳芳．认知语言学概论[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001．
[65] 周昌忠．西方现代语言哲学[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，1992．
[66] 朱永生．论语言符号的任意性与象似性[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2002，(1)．