认知语义视角下英、汉空间量度形容词对比研究

发布时间：2018-04-22 01:33

  本文选题：空间量度形容词 + 英语　； 参考：《东北师范大学》2017年博士论文

【摘要】：空间概念是人类普遍概念,空间量度形容词系统是英、汉语中皆有的词汇系统。国内外学者针对空间量度形容词的形态、句法功能、语义和习得进行了一系列研究,对英、汉语中个别空间量度形容词词对进行了对比。但是以往研究没有涉及英、汉空间量度形容词的转喻义,没有就英、汉空间量度形容词系统及所有成员的空间义、转喻义和隐喻义进行全面的对比,所以无法看到空间量度形容词语义的全貌。此外,以往的研究层面也比较单一,侧重于英、汉空间量度形容词的共时层面研究,没有考虑它们历时的发展变化。语义来源于身体经验,人类在与世界的反复互动中形成了意象图式。通过意象图式的转换和向抽象域的映射产生了转喻和隐喻,转喻和隐喻是词义扩展的基本途径。不同语言的使用者在基本层面上有相同的概念,但在组合层面上往往存在不同的语义概念和抽象概念,这就是新沃尔夫假说。本文在上述认知语义视角下针对英、汉空间量度形容词的空间义、转喻状况及隐喻映射域进行历时和共时相结合的对比研究,旨在回答以下问题:(1)英、汉空间量度形容词的空间义的异同及其成因是什么?(2)英、汉空间量度形容词的转喻类型有哪些?英、汉空间量度形容词的转喻状况的异同及其成因是什么?(3)英、汉空间量度形容词隐喻映射域的异同及其成因是什么?在以上所述的认知语义视角下,本研究首先根据空间量度形容词凸显的维度对它们进行分类,采用词典和语料库相结合的方法对词义进行静态和动态相结合的分析,主要采取质化分析的方法对空间量度形容词的使用进行倾向性研究。本文中空间量度形容词的释义来源于《牛津英汉高阶双解词典》(第8版)和《现代汉语词典》(第6版)两本共时词典,对于转喻引起的英、汉空间量度形容词转类和转义现象的分析主要依靠历时词典Oxford English Dictionary(网络版)和汉语大辞典软件(普及版)中的历时数据。共时语料主要来源于以空间量度形容词为检索词从BNC语料库和语料库在线中检索到的词频和用例,根据检索到的语料,分析空间量度形容词与相应的词汇搭配是用作空间义还是发生了隐喻化,如果用作空间义,判别在所述语境表达维度义、位置义还是距离义,然后归纳使用中的转喻类型和认知机制。如果用作隐喻义,判别使用中的隐喻映射域。在以上分析的基础上,我们归纳英、汉空间量度形容词空间义、转喻状况和隐喻映射域的异同并尝试做出解释。本研究有以下发现:(1)英、汉语中有基本对应的空间量度形容词词对,两个系统成员都表征相同的语义元素,能表达相同的空间义类型。体积和长度是英、汉语中空间量度的基本概念,这体现了空间认知中整体性和凸显性相结合的原则。在使用中表高度义和深度义的英、汉空间量度形容词描述方向发生泛化,表整体维度和宽度的词凸显维度数目都发生了泛化,英、汉空间量度形容词都出现在维度义、距离义和位置义之间转移的现象。两种语言中空间量度形容词语义系统的结构有细微的差别,英语空间量度形容词数目略多于汉语空间量度形容词的数目。英语中距离、高度、宽度以及整体维度的概念化和表征更详细,汉语对非凸显维度及低、矮义有比英语更详细的概念化和表征方式。这说明人类空间量度认知中的基本概念具有普遍性,空间量度概念上的精细度差异体现了组合层面上语义概念的差异。(2)转喻在空间量度形容词词义扩展中发挥了重要作用。英、汉空间量度形容词在转喻过程中发生了转类和转义两种情况。空间量度形容词转类的认知理据是同一个认知域中各要素之间的替代关系,它们转义的理据是一个认知域内部部分与整体之间互相替代的过程。除了具有相同的转喻类别,英、汉空间量度形容词在转喻过程中还有以下共性:有些空间量度形容词曾用作其他词类或者由其他的词类演化而来,大多数空间量度形容词都有向名词、副词、动词转类的情况,个别有向介词和代词转类的现象,但是英、汉空间量度形容词描述关系和性质的功能是它们现今典型的用法。英、汉空间量度形容词转类使用多具有非正式、临时性和已过时的特征。转喻引起的转义主要有维度数目泛化和位置义与维度义之间转移两种情况。英、汉空间量度形容词在转义方面具有高度一致性,这是因为英、汉语使用者具有相同的与空间有关的意象图式,如上-下意象图式、路径意象图式、刻度意象图式等,这些意象图式的旋转和变化造成了英、汉空间量度形容词空间义的扩展。英、汉空间量度形容词在转类方面存在一些差异:首先,“distant”没有发生任何转类现象,这大概与其他表达距离义的词可以自由用作副词和动词有关,词汇转类要受其他同类概念词语的制约。第二,总体而言,英语空间量度形容词的转类现象更普遍。能够用于描述动作的方式、时长和程度的汉语空间量度形容词和英语空间量度形容词比例相当,但是汉语空间量度形容词比英语空间量度形容词转类为副词的比例低得多,这是汉语词类划分标准造成的,所以对于词汇进行研究应考虑该语言中词类划分和语法构造的问题。(3)英、汉语中的空间量度形容词向数量域、范围规模域、等级程度域、评价域、比较域、力量强度域、年龄域、时间域、感知域、心智域、关系域、制度域、经济域映射。英、汉空间量度形容词的隐喻比转喻现象更普遍,这些隐喻义远远地超出了词典涵盖的范围。两种语言中描述整体维度的词对隐喻映射域最多,描述凸显维度的空间量度词的隐喻映射域比较对应。表示同样类别空间义的英、汉空间量度形容词在隐喻映射中有共同的偏好,距离常用来概念化时长,高度常用来概念化等级程度,面积常用来概念化范围,体积常用来概念化重要性。英、汉空间量度形容词词义在隐喻映射的过程中带上更强的主观色彩。英、汉空间量度形容词在隐喻映射的细节方面存在差异。英语中描述整体维度的两对词表现出不同的映射偏好,描述垂直维度的英、汉空间量度形容词向时间域和年龄映射时存在差异,“粗、细”在隐喻映射过程中与其他词的情感极向不同。本研究在对英、汉空间量度形容词进行对比研究的基础上得出以下结论:第一,英、汉空间量度形容词的对比研究支持新沃尔夫假说的主张,即不同语言在基本层面的语义构成方面一致。英、汉语使用者在空间量度概念组成、凸显维度认知、转喻类型和主要隐喻映射域方面存在比较一致的现象。基于共同的种系进化背景和同样的生存环境,英、汉语使用者形成了相似的空间意象图式和相似的身体经验获得了相同的基本层面概念。英、汉空间量度形容词隐喻的普遍性体现了人类认知中隐喻思维的普遍性,体现了空间认知在思维抽象化过程中的基础作用。跨语言基本概念的普遍性使得不同语言使用者进行交际成为可能。但是思维和交际依靠组合层面概念,所以英、汉语言使用者在组合层面上概念化空间量度、词类转喻、构造抽象概念的细节方面存在一些差异。不同文化和语言社区中概念化具有普遍性和可变性,自然语言语义系统兼有普遍性和民族性。英、汉空间量度形容词对应词对在隐喻映射方面的不同偏好印证了Lakoff(1987)的观点,即如果基本概念不同,那么依附于基本概念的扩展义会有较大的差异。虽然隐喻映射过程中意象图式的核心要素和整体结构得以保留,但是隐喻映射要受到词汇语义极向和语言使用者民族文化心理的影响。“粗、细”隐喻映射中的特殊情感极向说明只在将历时和共时视角相结合才能发现语言形式和语义的认知理据。第二,本研究结果支持Halliday(2008)提出的语言系统和实例互补的观点。本研究中通过在语篇语境中分析得出的很多词义没有收入词典中,即这些隐喻映射域和词义都远远地超出了词典涵盖的范围。因为词典呈现的是词汇语义的系统层面,语料库是语篇的总和,在语料库中检索到的都是词汇使用的实例,是语言系统潜势的实现,这些意义如果没有获得普遍认可或者得以长期使用就会从语言中逐渐消失,如果经反复运用固化之后有可能逐步进入词典,所以实例化一方面是语言词汇语义系统的实现,是词汇语义系统的创新使用,另一方面一旦这些新义获得稳固的地位就会进而丰富语言的词汇语义系统。
[Abstract]:The concept of space is the universal concept of human being. Space measurement adjective system is a lexical system in both English and Chinese. Scholars at home and abroad have conducted a series of studies on the form, syntactic function, semantics and acquisition of spatial quantitative adjectives. The translation of adjectives in English and Chinese space is a metaphorical meaning. It does not make a comprehensive comparison between English, Chinese space measurement adjectives and all members' spatial meaning, metaphorical meaning and metaphorical meaning. Therefore, it is impossible to see the full picture of the meaning of the spatial measurement of adjectives. In addition, the previous research level is relatively single, focusing on the English and Chinese space measure adjectives in common. Time level studies do not take into account their diachronic changes. Semantic origin is derived from physical experience. Human beings have formed image schemas in repeated interactions with the world. Metonymy and metaphor are produced through the conversion of image schema and mapping to the abstract domain. Metonymy and metaphor are the basic ways to expand the meaning of words. The users of different languages are in the basic way. There are the same concepts on the level, but there are often different semantic concepts and abstract concepts at the combination level. This is the new Wolf hypothesis. In this cognitive semantic perspective, this paper compares the spatial meaning, metonymy condition and metaphorical mapping domain of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives with a comparative study of diachronic and synchronic. The following questions: (1) what are the similarities and differences of spatial meaning of the quantitative adjectives in English and Chinese space and their causes? (2) what are the metonymy types of the measure adjectives in the Han space? What are the similarities and differences of the metonymy of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives and their causes? (3) what are the similarities and differences in the metaphorical mapping domain of the Chinese spatial measurement adjectives and what are their causes? From the perspective of cognitive semantics mentioned above, this study first classifies them according to the dimensions of the prominence of the spatial measure adjectives, and uses a method of combining a dictionary and a corpus to analyze the static and dynamic combination of the meaning of the word, and mainly adopts the qualitative analysis method to study the use of spatial quantitative adjectives. The interpretation of the spatial measure adjectives from the Oxford English Chinese high order double solution Dictionary (Eighth Edition) and the modern Chinese Dictionary (Sixth Edition) are the two synchronic dictionaries. For the metonymy, the analysis of the conversion and the meaning of the adjectives in the Chinese space measure mainly depends on the diachronic dictionary Oxford English Dictionary (Network Edition) and the Chinese dictionary. Diachronic data. The synchronic language is mainly derived from the frequency and use cases retrieved from the BNC corpus and corpus online by the spatial measurement adjectives. According to the retrieved corpus, the analysis of the spatial measure adjectives and the corresponding lexical collocations is used as space meaning or metaphorically metaphorically, if used as space On the basis of the above analysis, we sum up the similarities and differences of the spatial meaning of the adjectives, the metonymy and the metaphorical mapping domain. The following findings have been made. The following findings are as follows: (1) there is a basic corresponding spatial measure of adjective words in Chinese, and the two system members represent the same semantic elements and can express the same spatial semantic type. Volume and length are the basic concepts of spatial measurement in English and Chinese, which embodies the integral and convex dominance of spatial cognition. The principle of combination. In the use of high meaning and depth sense in the use of the table, Chinese space measure adjectives are generalized. The number of dimensions and dimensions of words in the whole dimension and width of the table are generalized. English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives all appear in dimension meaning, distance meaning and position sense. The spatial measurement adjectives in the two languages There are slight differences in the structure of the semantic system, and the number of adjectives in English space is slightly more than the number of Chinese spatial measurement adjectives. The concept and representation of distance, height, width and overall dimension in English are more detailed. Chinese has more detailed conceptions and representations for non prominence dimension and low, short meaning than English. The basic concepts in the class space measurement are universal, and the discrepancy in the concept of spatial measurement embodies the difference of semantic concepts on the combination level. (2) metonymy plays an important role in the expansion of the meaning of the adjective in spatial measurement. In English, the two cases of the metonymy in the metonymy of the Chinese space measure adjectives. The cognitive motivation of the classification of quantitative adjectives is an alternative relationship between the elements in the same cognitive domain. Their justification is a process of substitution between the inner part and the whole of the cognitive domain. In addition to the same metonymy category, the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives have the following commonalities in the metonymy process: some spatial measurement forms Adjectives have been used as other parts of speech or evolved from other parts of speech. Most of the spatial measure adjectives have the situation to nouns, adverbs, verbs and types of verbs, and there are some phenomena that turn to prepositions and pronouns. But the work of the English, Chinese space measure adjectives to describe relations and properties is their present typical usage. There are mostly informal, temporary and outdated features. Metonymy caused by metonymy mainly includes the generalization of dimension number and the transfer of two cases between position meaning and dimension meaning. English, Chinese space measure adjectives have high consistency in the sense of transfer, because English, Chinese users have the same meaning of space related. Image schema, such as the upper and lower image schema, the path image schema, the scale image schema, etc., the rotation and change of these image schemas cause the expansion of the spatial meaning of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives. There are some differences in the conversion of the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives: first, the "distant" does not take any kind of conversion, which is probably related to the others. Words expressing distance meaning can be freely used as adverbs and verbs, and vocabulary transfer should be restricted by other similar concepts. Second, in general, the transfer of adjectives in English space is more common. It can be used to describe the way of action, the length and degree of the Chinese space adjectives and the English space measure adjectives. For example, but the proportion of the Chinese spatial measurement adjectives is much lower than that of the adjectives in the English space. This is the result of the classification standard of the Chinese words. Therefore, the problem of the classification of words and the grammatical structure in the language should be considered. (3) the spatial measure adjectives in the Chinese language are in the scope and range. The domain, the degree domain, the evaluation domain, the comparative domain, the strength strength domain, the age domain, the time domain, the perception domain, the mental domain, the relation domain, the institutional domain, the economic domain mapping. The metaphor of the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives is more common than the metonymy. These metaphorical meanings are far beyond the scope of the dictionary. The word to the whole dimension of the two languages is implicit. Metaphorical domain is the most mapping domain, which describes the metaphorical mapping domain of the spatial metric words that describe the prominent dimensions. The English of the same category space meaning, the Chinese spatial measure adjectives have a common preference in the metaphorical mapping. They are often conceptualized in a long distance and are highly commonly used to conceptualize the degree range. The area is often used for conceptual scope. Volume is commonly used to almost all of them. The meaning of adjectives in English and Chinese space has a stronger subjective color in the process of metaphorical mapping. There are differences in the detail of metaphorical mapping between the English and Chinese space measure adjectives. The two pairs of words describing the overall dimension in English show different mapping preferences, the English of the vertical dimension, the adjectives of the Chinese space measurement. There is a difference between time domain and age mapping. "Coarse, fine" is very different from other words in the process of metaphorical mapping. On the basis of a comparative study of English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives, this study draws the following conclusions: first, the comparative study of English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives supports the proposition of the new Wolf hypothesis, that is, different languages. It is consistent with the semantic composition of the basic level. In English, Chinese users are composed of the concept of spatial measurement, highlighting the dimension cognition, the metonymy type and the main metaphorical mapping domain. Based on the common phylogenetic background and the same living environment, the Chinese speakers form a similar spatial image schema and the same living environment. Similar physical experience obtains the same basic level of concept. The universality of the metaphorical metaphor in English and Chinese space reflects the universality of metaphorical thinking in human cognition, reflecting the basic role of spatial cognition in the process of thinking abstraction. The universality of the basic concepts of cross language makes it possible for different language users to communicate. But thinking and communication depend on the concept of combination, so there are some differences between English and Chinese language users at the level of conceptual space, part of speech metonymy, and the details of constructing abstract concepts. The conceptualization of different cultures and language communities is universal and variable, and the natural language semantic system has both universality and nationality. The view of the different preferences of the adjective adjectives on the metaphorical mapping of Lakoff (1987) shows that if the basic concepts are different, then the extended meanings attached to the basic concepts are different. Although the core elements and the overall structure of the image schema are retained in the metaphorical mapping process, the metaphorical reflection is shown in the metaphorical projection. The special emotional polarity in the mappings of "coarse and fine" metaphor is only combined with diachronic and synchronic perspectives to discover the cognitive motivation of language forms and semantics. Second, the results of this study support the complementation of the language systems and examples proposed by Halliday (2008). In this study, many of the meanings of words in the text context are not included in the income dictionary, that is, these metaphorical mapping domains and meanings are far beyond the scope of the dictionary. Because the dictionary presents the system level of the lexical semantics, the corpus is the sum of the text, and all the words are used in the corpus. Examples are the realization of the potential of the language system. If they are not universally recognized or used for a long time, they will gradually disappear from the language. If they are repeatedly cured, it may gradually enter the dictionary, so the instantiation is the realization of the semantic system of the language vocabulary, the innovative use of the lexical semantic system, and the new use of the lexical semantic system. On the one hand, once these new meanings are firmly established, the lexical semantic system of the language will be enriched.

【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H146.2;H314.2
，

本文编号：1785028