从认知角度对英语HIGH/LOW和汉语高/低空间隐喻的对比研究
|
摘要
隐喻长期以来就被认为是自然语言的显著而普遍的特点。认知语言学则认为隐喻不仅仅是一种语言现象,更是一种强大的认知工具。人类所有的活动都发生在一定的空间当中,所以空间域是认知领域中最基本的领域之一。空间隐喻是以空间为始源域,并将其意象图式结构投射到其他非空间的抽象域的隐喻。根据经验显示主义的观点,人类的认知基础来源于他们的身体经验。“经验”在这里并不是狭义的指发生在个体身上的事情,而是人类经验的总称,包括人类身体的自然特征,我们遗传而来的天生的能力,我们的身体功能发挥作用的方式以及我们的社会结构等等。
本研究通过分析作为意象图式的英语中的空间概念HIGH/LOW和汉语中的空间概念高和低以及他们各自对其他领域的隐喻拓展情况,试图为以下的断言提供证据:隐喻是一种可以帮助人们理解抽象概念并进行抽象思维的重要机制;隐喻的实质是把始源域的意象图式结构投射到目标域。
本文讨论的四个空间概念分别是英语中的HIGH和LOW以及汉语中的高和低。这四个空间概念也是意象图式概念主要由三个要素构成,他们分别是:一个动体,一个垂直的路径以及一个路标。作为意象图式,HIGH/LOW和高/低有两个意义:拓展意义和位置意义。当HIGH/LOW和高/低作为意象图式被用来构建其他的非空间领域,也就是说当我们给一个非空间概念提供了一个纵坐标,一个动体和一个路径,这就意味着我们正在使用HIGH/LOW和高/低的隐喻拓展意义。通过对从词典中检索出来的词条的分析我们发现空间概念HIGH/LOW和高/低主要被用来构建以下五个非空间领域,根据其出现的频率的高低依次为:数量,等级,状态,感官以及时间。
本论文是以词典为基础的研究。通过检索英语和汉语词典中含有HIGH/LOW和高/低的词条,本研究拟揭示英语HIGH/LOW和汉语中高/低的隐喻拓展以及英汉两种语言在这方面的相同和不同之处。
通过对英语中HIGH/LOW和汉语中高/低的隐喻拓展的比较我们发现,英语和汉语在隐喻的拓展上存在很大的相似之处。HIGH/LOW和高/低的意象图式结构被投射到其他抽象领域中的这种隐喻映射是一致且具有系统性的。此外,在目标域的隐喻拓展上,两者也存在大体上的一致性。总之,HIGH/LOW和高/低的隐喻拓展的五个目标域,即:数量,等级,状态,感官和时间是个巨大的和谐的系统。至于英语汉语在空间隐喻拓展中的不一致主要是表现在目标域感官和目标域时间上。
It has been recognized for some time now that metaphor is a dominant and widespread feature of natural language. Cognitive linguistics holds that metaphor is not only a matter of language, but also a powerful tool of cognition. All of our actions take place in space, so the space domain is the basic domain in cognitive domains. Spatial metaphor takes space domain as its source domain and projects its image-schematic structure onto other non-spatial abstract domains. According to the experiential realism, the cognitive bases of humans come from their bodily experiences and physical experiences. The term“experience”is not to be taken in the narrow sense of the things that have happened to a single individual; instead it refers to the totality of human experience: the nature of our bodies, our genetically inherited capacities, our modes physical functioning in the world, our social organization and so on.
By analyzing spatial concepts HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese as image schemas and their metaphorical extensions to other non-spatial domains, the present study aims to provide evidence for these claims that metaphor is one of the main mechanisms that enables people to understand abstract concepts and to carry out abstract reasoning and that a metaphor is in the essence of mapping the image-schematic structures of the source domain onto that of the target domains.
The four image-schema concepts HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI are composed by three elements: a trajector, a vertical path and a landmark. And as image schemas, HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI have two meanings: stretching meaning and location meaning. When HIGH and LOW as image-schema concepts, are used to structure other non-spatial concepts, that is, when we provide a non-spatial concept with a vertical axis, a trajector, a landmark and a path, which means we are using the metaphorical meanings of HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI. Analysis of lexical items produced by these dictionaries has showed that spatial concepts HIGH and LOW are mainly used to structure the following five target domains: QUANTITY, RANK, STATES, SENSE and TIME according to their frequency.
This study is a dictionary-based study. By analyzing lexical items produced by English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries, the present study aims to reveal metaphorical extensions of HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese and these similarities and differences between them.
By contrasting metaphorical extensions of HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese, we have found that there are remarkable similarities and between English and Chinese in metaphorical extensions. The metaphorical mappings of the image–schematic structures of HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI are mapped onto those abstract domains in a coherent and systematic way. Furthermore, between the metaphorical extensions into different target domains there is also overall coherence. In a word, the mappings of the image-schematic structures of HIGH/LOW and GAO /DI onto the five target domains QUANTITY, RANK, STATES, SENSE and TIME characterize a huge coherent system. As to discrepancies between English and Chinese, according to the lexicographical data, the main discrepancies between HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI lie in the target domains of SENSE and TIME.
本研究通过分析作为意象图式的英语中的空间概念HIGH/LOW和汉语中的空间概念高和低以及他们各自对其他领域的隐喻拓展情况,试图为以下的断言提供证据:隐喻是一种可以帮助人们理解抽象概念并进行抽象思维的重要机制;隐喻的实质是把始源域的意象图式结构投射到目标域。
本文讨论的四个空间概念分别是英语中的HIGH和LOW以及汉语中的高和低。这四个空间概念也是意象图式概念主要由三个要素构成,他们分别是:一个动体,一个垂直的路径以及一个路标。作为意象图式,HIGH/LOW和高/低有两个意义:拓展意义和位置意义。当HIGH/LOW和高/低作为意象图式被用来构建其他的非空间领域,也就是说当我们给一个非空间概念提供了一个纵坐标,一个动体和一个路径,这就意味着我们正在使用HIGH/LOW和高/低的隐喻拓展意义。通过对从词典中检索出来的词条的分析我们发现空间概念HIGH/LOW和高/低主要被用来构建以下五个非空间领域,根据其出现的频率的高低依次为:数量,等级,状态,感官以及时间。
本论文是以词典为基础的研究。通过检索英语和汉语词典中含有HIGH/LOW和高/低的词条,本研究拟揭示英语HIGH/LOW和汉语中高/低的隐喻拓展以及英汉两种语言在这方面的相同和不同之处。
通过对英语中HIGH/LOW和汉语中高/低的隐喻拓展的比较我们发现,英语和汉语在隐喻的拓展上存在很大的相似之处。HIGH/LOW和高/低的意象图式结构被投射到其他抽象领域中的这种隐喻映射是一致且具有系统性的。此外,在目标域的隐喻拓展上,两者也存在大体上的一致性。总之,HIGH/LOW和高/低的隐喻拓展的五个目标域,即:数量,等级,状态,感官和时间是个巨大的和谐的系统。至于英语汉语在空间隐喻拓展中的不一致主要是表现在目标域感官和目标域时间上。
It has been recognized for some time now that metaphor is a dominant and widespread feature of natural language. Cognitive linguistics holds that metaphor is not only a matter of language, but also a powerful tool of cognition. All of our actions take place in space, so the space domain is the basic domain in cognitive domains. Spatial metaphor takes space domain as its source domain and projects its image-schematic structure onto other non-spatial abstract domains. According to the experiential realism, the cognitive bases of humans come from their bodily experiences and physical experiences. The term“experience”is not to be taken in the narrow sense of the things that have happened to a single individual; instead it refers to the totality of human experience: the nature of our bodies, our genetically inherited capacities, our modes physical functioning in the world, our social organization and so on.
By analyzing spatial concepts HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese as image schemas and their metaphorical extensions to other non-spatial domains, the present study aims to provide evidence for these claims that metaphor is one of the main mechanisms that enables people to understand abstract concepts and to carry out abstract reasoning and that a metaphor is in the essence of mapping the image-schematic structures of the source domain onto that of the target domains.
The four image-schema concepts HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI are composed by three elements: a trajector, a vertical path and a landmark. And as image schemas, HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI have two meanings: stretching meaning and location meaning. When HIGH and LOW as image-schema concepts, are used to structure other non-spatial concepts, that is, when we provide a non-spatial concept with a vertical axis, a trajector, a landmark and a path, which means we are using the metaphorical meanings of HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI. Analysis of lexical items produced by these dictionaries has showed that spatial concepts HIGH and LOW are mainly used to structure the following five target domains: QUANTITY, RANK, STATES, SENSE and TIME according to their frequency.
This study is a dictionary-based study. By analyzing lexical items produced by English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries, the present study aims to reveal metaphorical extensions of HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese and these similarities and differences between them.
By contrasting metaphorical extensions of HIGH/LOW in English and GAO/DI in Chinese, we have found that there are remarkable similarities and between English and Chinese in metaphorical extensions. The metaphorical mappings of the image–schematic structures of HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI are mapped onto those abstract domains in a coherent and systematic way. Furthermore, between the metaphorical extensions into different target domains there is also overall coherence. In a word, the mappings of the image-schematic structures of HIGH/LOW and GAO /DI onto the five target domains QUANTITY, RANK, STATES, SENSE and TIME characterize a huge coherent system. As to discrepancies between English and Chinese, according to the lexicographical data, the main discrepancies between HIGH/LOW and GAO/DI lie in the target domains of SENSE and TIME.
引文
Anderson, J.M. 1971.The Grammar of case: Towards a Localism Theory[M]. London: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle, 1954.The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle[M]. Intro. And notes Friedrich Slomsen. New York: Random House Modern library.
Black, M. 1993. More about Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought.[M] Cambridge University Press
Bickel, Balthasar, 1997. Spatial operation in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient oneself in Belhare . In Nuyts & Pederson (eds.) Language and conceptualization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, Melissa, 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Bloom et al. (eds.) Language and Space[M]. London: MIT Press.
Dahl, Oyvind, 1995. When the future comes from behind: Malagasy and other time concepts and some consequences for communication [J]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19-2: 197-210.
Putz, Martin, ed., 1992.Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honor of Rene Driven on the Occasion of His Sistieth Birthday[M]. Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gibbs, R.W., & Gerard J. Steen, 1997. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected linguistic Conference [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamings Publishing Company.
Goatly, Andrew, 1997. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London: Routledge.
Hill, Clifford., 1982. Up/down, front/back, left/right: A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenbord & W. Klein (eds.), Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonathan & Timothy, (2001.) A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial reporting. English for specific purposes [J], 249-266.
Klein, Harriet, 1987. The future precedes the past: time in Toba. Word 38 Kovecses, Zoltan, 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: a Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. &Johnson, M. 1980.Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987.Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1989. Some Empirical Results about the Nature of Concepts. Mind and Language [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., 1993.The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, In Ortony A (ed.) Metaphor and Thought [M] . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh [M]. Basin Book Group.
Lan Chun, 2003. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese [M]. Bei jing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Langacker, R.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1992. Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. Pragmatics [J].2-1:5-47. International Pragmatics Association.
Mac Cormac, Earl. 1990. A Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Ortony, A. (ed.). 1979. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, I. A., 1936. The Philosopy of Rhetori[M]c. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, John (ed.), 1996. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionar y[M]. London: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd, Glasgow.
Talmy, Leonard, 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg et al (eds.) Universals of Human Language(C), vol.4. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
The Philological Society, 1994.The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F. and Schemed, H.J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vanparys, Johan, 1984.Source metaphors in English. Journal of Pragmatics [J].8:395-411.
Willian Allan Neilson (eds.), 1966. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. U.S.A.: G. & C. Merriam Company
Willian Morris (eds.), 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Yu Ning, 1998. The contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
陈望道,1932,《修辞学发凡》[M],上海:大光出版社。
辞海编辑委员会,1999,《汉语辞海》(彩印版),北京:北京教育出版社。
耿占春,1993,《隐喻》[M],北京:东方出版社。
戴浩一,薛风生主编,1994,《功能主义与汉语语法》[M],北京:北京语言学院出版社。
胡壮麟, 2004,《认知隐喻学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
蓝纯, 1999,从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》,第4期,7-15。
蓝纯,2005,《认知语言学与隐喻研究》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
李福印,2004,当代国外认知语言学研究的热点——第八届国际认知语言学大会论文分析[J],《外语研究》第3期,1-9。
李宇明,1999,空间在世界认知中的地位—语言与认知关系的考察[J],湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第3期:64-68。
李宇明,2002,《语法研究录》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
林书武,1995,《隐喻与认知》评介[J],《外语教学与研究》第4期,65-73。
林书武,1997,国外隐喻研究综述[J],《外语教学与研究》第1期,11-19。
林书武,1998,“愤怒”的概念隐喻[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,9-11。
刘勰,1993,《文心雕龙》[M],合肥:安徽人民出版社。
沈家煊,1994,R.W. Langacker的“认知语法”[J],《国外语言学》第1期,12-20。
石毓智,1995,女人,火与危险的事物[J],《国外语言学》第1期,1-8。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
陶文好,2000,论up的空间和隐喻意义认知[J],《外语学刊》第4期,13-18。
严世清,1995,隐喻理论史探[J],《外国语》第5期,7-12。
游顺钊,1985,视觉语言学[J],《中国语文》第5期,25-30。
赵艳芳,1995,语言的隐喻认知结构-《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期,67-72。
赵艳芳,2002,《认知语言学》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
文秋芳,2001,《应用语言学》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
张沛,2004,《隐喻的生命》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
中国社科院语言研究所词典编辑室编,2005,《现代汉语词典》,北京:商务印书馆。
周榕,2001,隐喻认知基础的心理现实性-时间的空间隐喻表征的实验证据[J],《外语教学与研究》第2期,88-92。
周榕,2000,时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究[J],《现代外语》第1期,58-66。
周江林,张家强,2003,基于语料库的英语空间隐喻研究[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第9期,27-31。
Aristotle, 1954.The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle[M]. Intro. And notes Friedrich Slomsen. New York: Random House Modern library.
Black, M. 1993. More about Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought.[M] Cambridge University Press
Bickel, Balthasar, 1997. Spatial operation in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient oneself in Belhare . In Nuyts & Pederson (eds.) Language and conceptualization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, Melissa, 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Bloom et al. (eds.) Language and Space[M]. London: MIT Press.
Dahl, Oyvind, 1995. When the future comes from behind: Malagasy and other time concepts and some consequences for communication [J]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19-2: 197-210.
Putz, Martin, ed., 1992.Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honor of Rene Driven on the Occasion of His Sistieth Birthday[M]. Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gibbs, R.W., & Gerard J. Steen, 1997. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected linguistic Conference [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamings Publishing Company.
Goatly, Andrew, 1997. The Language of Metaphors [M]. London: Routledge.
Hill, Clifford., 1982. Up/down, front/back, left/right: A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenbord & W. Klein (eds.), Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonathan & Timothy, (2001.) A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial reporting. English for specific purposes [J], 249-266.
Klein, Harriet, 1987. The future precedes the past: time in Toba. Word 38 Kovecses, Zoltan, 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: a Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. &Johnson, M. 1980.Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987.Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1989. Some Empirical Results about the Nature of Concepts. Mind and Language [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., 1993.The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, In Ortony A (ed.) Metaphor and Thought [M] . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh [M]. Basin Book Group.
Lan Chun, 2003. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese [M]. Bei jing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Langacker, R.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1992. Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. Pragmatics [J].2-1:5-47. International Pragmatics Association.
Mac Cormac, Earl. 1990. A Theory of Metaphor [M]. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Ortony, A. (ed.). 1979. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, I. A., 1936. The Philosopy of Rhetori[M]c. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, John (ed.), 1996. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionar y[M]. London: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd, Glasgow.
Talmy, Leonard, 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg et al (eds.) Universals of Human Language(C), vol.4. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
The Philological Society, 1994.The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F. and Schemed, H.J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vanparys, Johan, 1984.Source metaphors in English. Journal of Pragmatics [J].8:395-411.
Willian Allan Neilson (eds.), 1966. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. U.S.A.: G. & C. Merriam Company
Willian Morris (eds.), 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Yu Ning, 1998. The contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
陈望道,1932,《修辞学发凡》[M],上海:大光出版社。
辞海编辑委员会,1999,《汉语辞海》(彩印版),北京:北京教育出版社。
耿占春,1993,《隐喻》[M],北京:东方出版社。
戴浩一,薛风生主编,1994,《功能主义与汉语语法》[M],北京:北京语言学院出版社。
胡壮麟, 2004,《认知隐喻学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
蓝纯, 1999,从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻[J],《外语教学与研究》,第4期,7-15。
蓝纯,2005,《认知语言学与隐喻研究》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
李福印,2004,当代国外认知语言学研究的热点——第八届国际认知语言学大会论文分析[J],《外语研究》第3期,1-9。
李宇明,1999,空间在世界认知中的地位—语言与认知关系的考察[J],湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第3期:64-68。
李宇明,2002,《语法研究录》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
林书武,1995,《隐喻与认知》评介[J],《外语教学与研究》第4期,65-73。
林书武,1997,国外隐喻研究综述[J],《外语教学与研究》第1期,11-19。
林书武,1998,“愤怒”的概念隐喻[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,9-11。
刘勰,1993,《文心雕龙》[M],合肥:安徽人民出版社。
沈家煊,1994,R.W. Langacker的“认知语法”[J],《国外语言学》第1期,12-20。
石毓智,1995,女人,火与危险的事物[J],《国外语言学》第1期,1-8。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
陶文好,2000,论up的空间和隐喻意义认知[J],《外语学刊》第4期,13-18。
严世清,1995,隐喻理论史探[J],《外国语》第5期,7-12。
游顺钊,1985,视觉语言学[J],《中国语文》第5期,25-30。
赵艳芳,1995,语言的隐喻认知结构-《我们赖以生存的隐喻》评介[J],《外语教学与研究》第3期,67-72。
赵艳芳,2002,《认知语言学》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
文秋芳,2001,《应用语言学》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
张沛,2004,《隐喻的生命》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
中国社科院语言研究所词典编辑室编,2005,《现代汉语词典》,北京:商务印书馆。
周榕,2001,隐喻认知基础的心理现实性-时间的空间隐喻表征的实验证据[J],《外语教学与研究》第2期,88-92。
周榕,2000,时间隐喻表征的跨文化研究[J],《现代外语》第1期,58-66。
周江林,张家强,2003,基于语料库的英语空间隐喻研究[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第9期,27-31。