【作者】 尹丕安；

【导师】 梅德明；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 《圣经》不仅是基督教的一部圣典,同时也是西方文明的文化基础和文学基础。20世纪中叶以来,人们开始将《圣经》从整体上看作是一部伟大的文学著作,并在西方形成了一门新的研究学科。20世纪后半叶,在西方开始形成用文学批评理论和手段来阐释《圣经》的热潮。《圣经》研究中重要的一个方面是针对圣经隐喻(包括寓言故事)的研究。隐喻可以说是《圣经》中最常见的一种语言现象,它贯穿于《圣经》的新约和旧约。国内外专门针对圣经隐喻的研究大多是在文学和文化维度上进行的。从认知语言学和语用学的层面上对圣经隐喻进行专门研究,目前国内外并不多见。本研究是基于以下假设而展开:圣经隐喻是一种特殊的语言现象,同时也是言语交际活动的一种特殊形式。这一假设为从认知语言学和语用学视角研究圣经隐喻现象提供了可能。该研究以语用学中的关联理论(RT)和顺应理论(AT)以及认知语言学中的概念隐喻理论(CMT)和概念整合理论(CBT)为理论基础,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,试图创建一个R-A-C-C架构,此架构可以作为圣经隐喻阐释的理论框架。R-A-C-C架构的创建,主要是基于以下理论对比:第一,目前国内外还没有一个相对理想化的理论和应用架构,来阐释圣经的隐喻问题。因此,基于语用学和认知语言学的理论基础,创建一个圣经隐喻阐释架构,势在必行。第二,RT ,AT,CMT和CBT作为语用学和认知语言学的四大主体性理论,在研究和解析语言和交际方面,各有优缺点,具有很大的互补性和借鉴性。首先,从宏观来看,RT和AT致力于从语用视角来解决交际问题;CMT和CBT侧重从认知视角来解决语言问题。语用与认知即构成互补性。其次,从微观来看,RT强调在明示—推理范式下,以经济性原则寻求最佳关联,解释交际的过程;AT认为,顺应贯穿于交际过程的始终,交际的成败离不开对语言的顺应与选择。RT强调交际者的心理推导过程,AT则以顺应观、社会观和文化观来看待交际。从阐释力来看,RT在逻辑认知推导方面强于AT,而AT则更强调社交和文化维度在交际中的作用。RT强调语境效果在隐喻中的作用;AT倾向于以动态方式来解释和描述语言,对语境的动态顺应是交际成功的关键。RT强调获取会话含义的推导机制,但却无法解释为何某一阐释具有关联性,因此过于主观化。AT强调对特定语境作出顺应是语言使用的主要特征,但却无法为顺应性提供一个理论基础和认知方向。我们认为,RT对话语规律的描述与AT偏重于对话语的解释功能具有互补性。第三,CMT的单向不可逆映射性和CBT的多向投射性在阐释隐喻的运作机制方面,具有相互的补偿性。CMT主要处理具有普遍性及其规约性的隐喻概念化过程,而CBT主要解决非规约新奇隐喻的跨语域关系和概念化过程,二者都强调系统的映射和两个概念域的意象推理,两类模式具有高度互补性。我们认为,RT, AT, CMT和CBT是圣经隐喻阐释的必要途径。R-A-C-C架构正是基于以上四种理论的互补性,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,以语用和认知为理论框架,集四种理论的优势为一体的圣经隐喻阐释模式,其阐释过程主要分为两大步骤,即解构阶段和构建阶段。解构阶段涉及隐喻意图和意义的解码。本过程的目的在于推断隐喻意图和隐喻意义表征,以隐喻推断为主。隐喻推断分为三个步骤:第一,明示意义与暗含意义的确认。第二,语境建构、语境激活与语境顺应过程。经过以上两个步骤,进入构建阶段。本阶段以隐喻的映射和合成过程为特征,分为三个步骤。第一,源域和目标域的建构以及互动过程。通过该过程,建立圣经隐喻的相关映射以及整合网络。第二,关联理论和顺应理论理据下的隐喻意义合成过程。通过该过程,圣经隐喻的新创意义即可生成。第三,最终获取圣经隐喻的阐释意义。整个过程中,阐释者的认知主体性作用处于凸显地位。它不仅包括阐释者的社会、文化以及认知推导能力,更强调阐释者与上帝的关系以及对待神的态度。该研究有以下几个创新之处:第一,以语用学和认知语言学为理论基础,通过整合和完善相关理论,创建了圣经隐喻阐释机制的R-A-C-C架构。通过构建该架构过程中的理论探索和在实际圣经隐喻阐释中的应用,我们认为:该架构优于当前的RT, AT, CMT和CBT,是圣经隐喻阐释的一个有力工具和理论保障。对于其他类型的隐喻阐释也具有指导作用。第二,尝试将《圣经》的神学性、文学性、文化性、历史性以及语言特性纳入语用学和认知语言学的视阈内,以经验现实主义为哲学基础,从语言学的视角探索圣经隐喻的阐释机制。第三,将语用学与认知语言学相关理论予以整合,以基督教圣典为研究对象,该模式优化了当前语用学与认知语言学的四大理论,为今后基于语言学理论研究各类宗教经典提供了新的思路和视角。第四,提出了圣经隐喻阐释是基于语用推理、概念映射及整合以及阐释者认知主体性共同作用的结果这一理论观点。这一观点将为今后研究其他语言现象提供参考价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 The book Bible has long been considered as the scripture of Christianity. At the same time, it is regarded as the foundation of civilization and literature in the West. Ever since the middle of twentieth century, the Bible has been thought of as a great work on the whole and a new research discipline has been formed in the academic realm in the West. In the late twentieth century a new upsurge started in the interpretative study on the Bible with literary critical theory and approach. One of the most important aspects in the biblical study centers on the study of biblical metaphors (including parables). It is universally claimed that the use of metaphors is the most distinctive and common language phenomenon in the Bible, which runs through the Old Testament and the New Testament. Currently, the study on biblical metaphors still remains on the literary and cultural dimensions at home and abroad. The comprehensive study on biblical metaphors in terms of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics is seldom seen either at home or abroad.Our research is conducted on the basis of the following hypotheses: Biblical metaphors are a special language phenomenon as well as a special form of verbal communication. This argument makes it possible that the research on biblical metaphorical interpretations could be conducted in terms of pragmatic and cognitive linguistic perspectives. Specifically, this research is based on the Relevance Theory and the Adaptation Theory within the study of pragmatics; on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory as well as the Conceptual Blending Theory within the study of cognitive linguistics; on the experiential realism of philosophy to establish a R-A-C-C (the construction of Relevance-Adaptation-Conceptual metaphor theory-Conceptual blending theory) framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations.The construction of R-A-C-C framework is based on the following theoretical considerations:Firstly, at present, a relatively idealized and comprehensive theoretical and practical framework for the biblical metaphorical interpretations has not been set up at home and abroad; therefore, it is imperative to construct a framework for the interpretations of biblical metaphors on the basis of contemporary pragmatic and cognitive linguistic theories.Secondly, being the four fundamental theories in pragmatics and cognitive linguistics, RT, AT, CMT, and CBT have their respective merits and demerits and they are mutually complementary and supporting each other in the study of language and communication. From the macroscopic point of view, RT and AT deal with communication from the pragmatic perspective; CMT and CBT lay special emphasis on the cognitive perspective in dealing with language issues. In this case, the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective constitute the complementarities. From the microscopic point of view, though, RT stresses that the process of communication can be dealt with by seeking the optimum relevance with economical principle within the paradigm of ostension-inference. According to AT, adaptation runs through the whole process of communication and communication will break down without the language adaptation and choice. RT stresses the psychological inference whereas AT treats communication with the perspective of adaptation, society, and culture. Viewing from the explanatory power, we can see RT is more forceful than AT in terms of the logic cognitive inference; AT lays more emphasis on the function of society and culture in the process of communication. RT stresses the function of contextual effect in metaphors; AT tends to account for and describe the language in a dynamic way and claims that the key to successful communication lies in the dynamic adaptation to the context. RT stresses the mechanism of inference in obtaining the conversational implicature but it fails to explain why a certain kind of interpretation is relevant, thus resulting in a sort of subjectivity. AT stresses that it is the chief characteristics of language use to make adaptation to the specific language. But it cannot offer a theoretical foundation and cognitive orientation for the adaptation. We maintain that the description of language’s regular patterns with RT and the focus on the explanatory function of the utterance with AT are complementary.Thirdly, the unidirectional mapping with CMT and the multidirectional projecting with CBT are also complementary to each other in terms of the operating mechanism of biblical metaphor interpretations. CMT mainly deals with the metaphorical conceptual process with generality and conventionality whereas CBT mainly resolve the cross-domain relation of the unconventional novel metaphor and the process of the conceptualization. Both emphasize the mapping in the system and the intentional inferences of the two conceptual domains, thus the two are highly complementary.We hold that RT, AT, CMT, and CBT are the necessary means toward the interpretations of biblical metaphors, hence the R-A-C-C framework. It is constructed on the basis of the complementarities of the four theories, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, the pragmatic and cognitive theories as the theoretical framework, incorporating all the respective merits of the four theories for the biblical metaphorical interpretations. The interpretative process of R-A-C-C framework is composed of two stages, namely, the deconstructing stage and the constructing stage. The deconstructing stage involves the decoding of the metaphorical intention and meaning. The metaphorical inference is considered to be the main part of this phase, which is made up of two steps. The first step is the identification of the explicature and implicature. The second step is the contextual construction, the contextual activation, and the contextual adaptation. In the constructing stage, the metaphorical mapping and blending is highlighted, which is composed of three steps. The first step is the construction and interaction among the source domain and the target domain through which the mapping and blending network are set up. The second step is the process of the integration for the metaphorical meaning motivated by RT and AT. Through the process, the emergent structure and meaning can be generated. Finally, the ultimate accepted biblical metaphorical interpretation can be achieved. During the whole course of interpretation, the audience’s cognitive subjectivity plays the important role. It includes not just the audience’s social, cultural, and cognitive inferential competence; it also stresses the audience’s relationship with the God and the attitude towards God.This research has made some innovations so far. Firstly, the R-A-C-C framework is created for the interpretation of biblical metaphors in combination with the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories as the theoretical foundation. Through the theoretical exploration and the application of R-A-C-C framework to the interpretation of biblical metaphors, we have found that the R-A-C-C framework is superior to the RT, AT, CMT, and CBT. It is a powerful tool and theoretical guarantee for the interpretation of biblical metaphors; at the same time, it is also instructive to other types of metaphors. Secondly, with the experiential realism as the philosophical basis, we have explored the interpretative mechanism of biblical metaphors completely from the linguistic perspective, attempting to bring the Bible’s theological nature, literary nature, cultural nature, historical nature, and language peculiarity to the scope of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Thirdly, with the scripture of Christianity as the research object, we have tried to integrate the pragmatic and the cognitive linguistic theories. This practice offers an entirely new thinking pattern and perspective for the study of other religious scriptures within the frame of linguistics. Fourthly, it is proposed that the biblical metaphorical interpretation is based on the interactive operation of pragmatic inference, conceptual mapping and blending, plus the addressee’s cognitive subjectivity. This point of view might offer the reference value for the study of other language phenomena.更多还原