【作者】 赵允敬；

【导师】 戴耀晶；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 现代汉语语言学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 本文运用认知语义理论,从概念域之间的隐喻映射角度,分析现代汉语单音节形容词词义,并区分、描写单音节形容词源域义和目标域义之间的映射关系。学界不少有关认知语义的文献,已经探讨了多义词各义项之间的隐喻过程必要性,本文认为,虽然在此之前也已有学者对单音节形容词的认知语义从对度量角度进行了相关研究,但到目前为止,还没有全面系统地研究整个汉语单音节形容词系统的隐喻趋向的论文。汉语单音节形容词的身份很特殊,在保留古汉语特征的同时,还在现代汉语多音节形容词和多音节名词等中担任词素,其研究价值不但可以促进对汉语形容词的词义研究,而且可以在对外汉语教学和比较语言学中做出贡献。本文的工作是描写单音节形容词的词义之间的隐喻关系,主要对下面几个问题进行了探讨。首先,努力克服形容词词义的模糊性和抽象性,进行单音节形容词的源域义确定工作。在本文中,源域义的确定是非常关键的部分,因为源域确定直接影响类型划分、源域目标域界限的确定,还会影响到词义解释。不同的认知理论,不同的研究者,在描写单音节形容词的词义之间的隐喻关系时,会得到不同的结果。本文的工作,则主要是在传统词汇语义学有关汉语单音节形容词的词义研究的基础上,试图对整个现代汉语单音节形容词系统进行源域义确定,并力图解释源域与其他隐喻义之间的发展路线。本文在源域义确定上采用的基准,主要是认知语义学所秉持的经验主义哲学观,尤其强调身体感知,即基于生活者的日常经验的“常识”。当然,我们也参考了词典的基本义释义,如《汉语形容词用法词典》和《现代汉语词典》。但是,当这两个标准发生冲突时,在我们的研究中,第一基准先于第二基准。这是因为词典标注的某些基本义,有可能是历时的源头,但对于当代的中国人来说,已经鲜为大众所知,不再具有认知上的显著性,人们已把其他的某个意义当作为本源。而我们的研究注重的是人们的认识,所以特别强调汉语母语使用者的语感。在这两个基准无效时,本文还参考了汉语的文字特征。其次,本文试图确定单音节形容词的源域义所修辞或限定的对象的属性,并列出典型的对象的类型,这也是本文的一大难点。本文运用新起的词汇语义学语义场理论,经过三步,确定了四种对象,并对四种对象的语义场做了说明。第一步,语言使用者“人”的感知表达对语言的影响很深,本文从“人类生命体的独特属性”,从“物”对象分出“人”对象。值得注意的是“人”对象的属性有两种,一是身体的感知,二是内面(心理)的认知。与之相应,客观世界的具体物质“物”的属性也有两种：包括人类的物质和不能包括人类的物质,其划分的基准在于物质属性是否性涉及到人类。比如,“长度”包括人的长度,但“甜”只涉及到食用物,除了食人种以外,人类日常生活语言中一般不会涉及到人。第二步,对象的属性各自具有具体性和抽象性。“人”的不同属性中有具体性的,也有抽象性的。同样原理,“物”也有抽象的物和具体的物。我们把这些抽象物从“人类”思维认知中拿出来,确定了“概念”对象,它是我们关于人或物的抽象的实体。第三步,与单音节形容词所搭配的对象不只是“物”或“人”,不只是“实体”,还有“事”,有“关系”。因此,我们还确立了“事件”对象。按照认知语义基本假设——具体到抽象、已知到未知——本文观察了“人”、“物质”、“概念”、“事件”四个语义场之间的隐喻映射关系。借助认知语言学范畴理论,本文把它们划分为两大类：具有具体值的具体域和具有抽象值的抽象域。各语义场在这一划分中的归属关系是：具体域的“物质”语义场具体域的“事件”语义场具体域的“人”语义场抽象域的“人”语义场抽象域的“概念”语义场在这一系统中,“人”语义场一分为二,人的具体属性属于具体域,抽象属性属于抽象域,这是因为“人”是语言的创造者和使用者,在他所创造的这个语言世界中,他是最被关注的对象,所以涉人属性最多,需要分别处理。采用上述理论和研究方法,本文描写了162个现代汉语单音节形容词的源域义和隐喻义,文中按照专业词典的形式对此加以展示。在词义描写的过程中,我们发现了两个不同的现象。第一种现象是,从具体域向抽象域的转化,打破了上述划分的基本界限。单音节形容词在与其对象搭配时,理想的状况应该是,属于甲语义场的形容词只与属于甲语义场的对象搭配,属于乙语义场的形容词只与属于乙语义场的对象搭配,不出现交叉配置的情况。但实际上,在源域义中属于物质语义场的很多单音节形容词(主要是很多表示人类的物质属性的单音节形容词),却在与人类的身体部位对象搭配后,不再指作为具体物质的身体部位,而是指向人类独特的内在心理、心情、性格等抽象域意义。这些类型大量存在,值得独立拿出来讨论。第二种现象是,已经词素化的单音节形容词的词义,也许在当代我们已经很难确定它的源域义了。它们往往蕴含其语言使用民族的文化义,本文从对外汉语教学角度来看,认为要特别重视具有特殊的文化义的单音节形容词的词义,所以,词义描写中列过一些。我们可以猜测现代汉语日常生活中使用大量由单音节形容词组成的用语,他们也许直接与源域义相关,或者已经转喻并指向特别的事物,甚至也许已经失去了隐喻的发展路线。本文的最后一部分,在上述词义描写的基础上,把现代汉语形容词与相对应的韩语形容词进行了对比,重点在“求异”,从而说明现代汉语单音节形容词认知隐喻义的独特性,以深化对韩汉语教学的研究。本文的难点及处理办法：第一,对单音节形容词进行定义具有相当高的难度。本文的主要研究对象为《汉语形容词用法词典》所载的163个单音节形容词中的162个单音节形容词。但是,词典编纂所采用的基准我们难以把握,比如该书所列形容词中有“男”而没有“女”,各种味觉单音节形容词中没有“咸”。因此,本文将单音节形容词规定为它的源域义能单独成词的形容词,而不包括只能担任复合词构词语素的那些,而且只讨论可做谓语的形容词。对单音节形容词的主要句法功能可以有不同理解,可以从定语功能看,也可以从谓语功能看,但一个形容词在定中结构和主谓结构中所搭配的对象可能会有所不同。本文的目的既然是为了解释认知语义,解释基本义到源域义的过程,就必然需要考虑成熟而较为自由的搭配,不能受某些非常特别的搭配的限制。我们发现,单音节形容词谓语句是单音节形容词运用的基本形式,其中的用法都是已经成熟,并且比较普遍的用法,而做定语时会涉及一些特例。故本文主要从谓语位置进行研究,当然定语位置的功能有时也会提到。第二,区分单音节形容词的认知域也有相当高的难度。认知域在基本层次上分为具体域和抽象域两种,下位认知域则在具体和抽象的基础上进行细分,如具体域的下位认知域又分为人类、物质等。形容词本身表示性状,其语义比名词、动词更为抽象义,所以从单音节形容词自身语义来确定认知域,是十分不易而且也很不可靠的,必须依靠与其搭配的对象来确定认知域。在搭配对象方面有三种棘手情况：一是有的单音节形容词常与动词搭配。一般来说单音节形容词与名词搭配,我们根据名词的属性来区分形容词的认知域及下位认知域,但有的单音节形容词则以与动词搭配作为主要功能。如表味觉的单音节形容词“甜”、表颜色的单音节形容词“红”和表形状的单音节形容词“大”都通过与其搭配的名词来确定其认知域,但“透”、“碎”、“全”、“稳”等等表示状态的单音节形容词,则常与动词搭配,而从这些动词有时很难确定究竟属于哪个认知域。二是有的单音节形容词常与表示自然现象的名词搭配。这些名词的属性要么与动词有密切关系,如“气味(冒出)很冲”,要么名词本身具有抽象属性,比如“风(气势)很猛”,还有气候类的单音节形容词也是如此。三是有的单音节形容词与时间有关,比如“新”、“旧”、“久”等,指的是时间的属性,但它们却与具体名词搭配,这时是算作具体域还是抽象域颇费思量。另外,应该把“快”、“慢”看成与时间有关的单音节形容词,还是与动词常发生关系的表示状态的单音节形容词呢?这些定位问题是个难题。本文在讨论过程中,力图对这一些处于跨域范畴的单音节形容词进行相对明晰地定位,而一些由于各种原因很难理清的单音节形容词,本文将存疑处理。更多还原

【Abstract】 In this paper, cognitive semantic theories are applied to analyse the meanings of monosyllable adjectives in Modern Chinese from the aspect of metaphorical mapping among conceptual domains and to distinguish and describe the mapping relations between the meaning of the source domain and that of the target domain of the monosyllable adjectives. The necessity of the process of metaphorization among the ambiguity of polysemy has been discussed in literature on cognitive semantics; however, it is argued in this paper that although some scholars have studied from the aspect of measurement on the cognitive meanings of monosyllabic adjectives, there has been little comprehensive or systematic research on the overall metaphorical trend of the meaning development of monosyllable adjectives in Chinese.Chinese monosyllable adjectives are of peculiar characteristics. They retain traits of ancient Chinese and at the same time play the role of multi-syllable adjectives and multi-syllable morphemes in Modern Chinese. The research on Chinese monosyllable adjectives can not only further the studies on the meanings of adjectives but also shed light on studies in the fields of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language and Comparative Linguistics.This paper mainly discusses the following issues so as to describe the metaphorical relations among the meanings of monosyllable adjectives.First of all, the meaning of the source domain of the monosyllable adjectives must be determined in spite of the ambiguous and abstract nature of the adjectives. It is argued in this paper that the determination of the source domain and its meaning is of significant importance. Such determination imposes direct influence not only on demarcating source domain from target domain but also on explaining the meaning of words. Strictly speaking, there can be various results when describing the metaphorical relations among the meanings of monosyllable adjectives. The first achievement of this paper is to try to determinate, for the first time, the meaning of the source domain of the monosyllable adjectives in Modern Chinese as a whole on the basis of researches on the meanings of Chinese monosyllable adjectives in traditional lexical semantics and also to explain the development path among the meanings of source domain and other metaphorical meanings.In this paper, the main standard used to determine the meaning of source domain is body perception that can be found in the philosophical basis of experientialism. The second standard is the basic meanings given in dictionaries, such as Dictionary of Usage of Chinese Adjectives and Modern Chinese Dictionary. The first standard is in preference to the second standard when it is necessary to distinguish the meaning of source domain within the basic meanings of the words. The third standard is to look for the original meanings of the words taking reference of the characteristics of Chinese characters when it fails to find the first standard among the meanings of the words due to the differences between their original meanings and basic meanings. The fourth standard is to take reference of the language intuition of the Chinese native speakers when the judgement of the language intuition is needed.Secondly, the property of the objects that match the meaning of the source domain in the relevant source domain must be confirmed and typical objects must be identified and listed. This is also one of the difficulties encountered in this study. Four objects are identified after three thinking stages. This is in line with the newly emerged theory of semantic fields in vocabulary semantics. The four object semantic fields are as follows.At the first thinking stage, the object of "human being" are separated from the object of "thing" based on peculiar characteristics of human beings, according to the theory that "perceptive expressions of the human being have profound effects on the language". At the second stage, the object of "concept" is set up because both "human being" and "thing" reflect concreteness and abstraction. At the third stage, the object of "event" is established because monosyllable adjectives can be used to accompany not only the human beings and non-human beings but also events.According to the basic principle in cognitive semantics, namely from the concrete to the abstract and from the known to the unknown, four semantic fields are identified in this study in observing the metaphorical mapping relationship among them. Based on the "fussy boundaries" theory of cognitive linguistics, concrete domain with concrete quantity and abstract domain with abstract quantity are established. The four subsumed semantic fields include "thing" semantic field in the concrete domain, "event" semantic field in the concrete domain, "human being" semantic field in the concrete domain, "human being" semantic field in the abstract domain and "concept" semantic field in the abstract domain. It is clear that "human being" semantic field belongs to both of the two domains. The human being is the user of the language and also the main performer in the abstract world and subjective world.The meaning in the source domain and their metaphorical meaning of 162 monosyllable adjectives in Modern Chinese are described and displayed in the way of professional dictionaries. However, in the process of describing the meanings, two extra types are discovered among these adjectives.One type includes the monosyllable adjectives that are against the basic mechanism of the ideas discussed above, e.g. some monosyllabic adjectives are used to express abstract mentality, feelings or personality of the human being instead of the actual parts of the physical body. Separate researches should be carried out to look into such words.The other type includes the monosyllable adjectives that have become morphemes. Some of them could have been listed when their vocabulary meanings were described. It is possible that they had relations with the meaning in the source domain but now refer to something specific after the course of metonymy. It is also possible that the path of metaphor has been lost.Finally, on the basis of the vocabulary meaning description, a comparison is carried out between adjectives in Modern Chinese and their equivalents in Korean. Such comparison will be helpful in exploring the specific cognitive metaphorical meaning of monosyllable adjectives in Modern Chinese and be beneficial to researches on teaching Chinese to Korean native speakers.更多还原