【作者】 李毅；

【导师】 刘振前；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 认知语言学体验性假说认为,人们通常借助具体的诸如人体(部位)等源域概念来理解和描述抽象的诸如认知(心智)等目标域概念,因此,人体在语言意义的产生和理解过程中发挥至关重要的作用。本研究以体验认知互动论假说为理论基点,旨在探讨人体(部位)隐喻的普遍概念、语言表达方式及其文化具体性(cultural specificity)三者的有机联系。基于英、汉语两种大型通用语料库中的语料,本研究分析、比较了英汉两种语言和文化社团如何使用“头”和“心”这两个人体部位来构建和描述心智与情感活动的语言表达方式,从而剖析隐喻产生的体验和文化双重根源,揭示隐喻普遍性和文化变异性的本质特征,发掘隐喻在语言-思维-文化三者之间的互动关联,重新审视人体(经验)在语言意义产生和抽象概念形成中的地位和作用。同时,本研究试图为如何从大型语料库中系统识别语言隐喻和概念隐喻提供方法论启示。本研究仅分析语言符号研究意义上的隐喻,并未涉及心理学行为研究意义上的隐喻,因此,所发现的概念隐喻不代表语言使用者的隐喻在线加工过程及其存在于大脑概念系统中的认知表征形式。值得指出的是,研究语言和思维中的隐喻须采用各自独立的隐喻识别与分析方法,这也是本研究在研究方法上的创新之处。本研究采用Pragglejaz团队的隐喻识别程序(MIP)来识别语言中的隐喻,而思维中的概念隐喻则采用词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO:Suggested Upper Merged Ontology)语料库的方法来加以判别。隐喻识别程序(MIP)通过辨认隐喻词汇(MUWs)识别语言隐喻,不涉及隐喻概念；词汇网络(Wordnet)和建议上层共用知识本体(SUMO)则通过确认概念域来识别概念隐喻。这种自下而上(bottom-up)的隐喻识别方法较之先入为主以概念隐喻为出发点自上而下(top-down)的传统隐喻分析方法具有明显的优势。本研究通过分析和比较,发现英汉两种语言在语言隐喻和概念隐喻存在以下异同之处：(a)隐喻是语言使用的普遍现象,所研究词项的隐喻义用法在两种语言中的使用频次均相当于、甚至高于其字面义。词汇的隐喻用法在语言中呈现出与其邻近词汇系统关联的突出特征,固定和半固定搭配表达式为辨别词汇隐喻义的主要标志。(b)英汉两种语言用于理解和描述心智活动的两个概念隐喻分别是：头(英)/心(汉)是容器以及头(英)/心(汉)是物体的操控。但是,这两个概念隐喻在两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度有差异,头(英)是容器和心(汉)是物体的操控分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。(c)两种语言所共享的用于理解和描述情感活动的三个概念隐喻是：心是物体、心是容器和心是运动。但是,这三者在英汉两种语言中所呈现出的凸显(规约)度亦存在差异,心是物体和心是容器分别为英语和汉语中最凸显的隐喻结构。英汉两种语言在共享概念隐喻凸显(规约)度上的差异说明,英汉两种不同文化对于相同身体经验的阐述有着各自不同的概念化方式和认知偏好,从而导致差异的出现。概念隐喻在英汉两种语言中所具有的共同性(普遍性)表明,相同的身体经验是人们构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的基础。研究发现,隐喻的文化变异性主要体现在两种语言和文化中可供构建和描述心智与情感体验活动的“目标域范围”上。(a)英语主要使用两个“源域”概念描述心智活动：容器和物体的操控(头是容器和头是物体的操控)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以描述：物体的操控、地点、运动、容器和光线(心是物体的操控、心是地点、心是运动、心是容器和心是光线)。其中,概念隐喻“心是地点”、“心是运动”和“心是光线”为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻(alternative metaphors)。(b)英语主要应用三个“源域”概念来表达情感活动：物体、容器和运动(心是物体、心是容器和心是运动)；而汉语则使用五个“源域”概念加以表达：容器、运动、物体、热和食物(心是容器、心是运动、心是物体、心是热和心是食物)。其中,概念隐喻“心是热”和“心是食物”则为汉语言和文化中所特有的可选择性隐喻。究其原因,“心”这一“目标域”的“范围”在汉语中得以扩大和延伸,因而导致差异的产生。英、汉语分别借用“头”、“心”两个不同的身体部位对心智活动加以概念化,由此可见,英汉两种语言存在两种不同的文化认知模式。英语中“头”司掌心智而“心”则主辖情感,呈现出“脑为主”(cerebrocentrism)、“头”与“心”相互分离的二元(dualist)文化认知模式;汉语中“心”主辖心智和情感,呈现出“心为主”(cardiocentrism)的统一(holistic)文化认知模式。英汉两种文化认知模式差异的产生源自两种文化所特有的主流哲学思想和民俗传统,从这个意义上讲,人体(部位)的概念化是文化认知的产物。本研究表明,隐喻的产生源自体验认知和文化概念两者之间的相互作用。体验认知互动论观(the interaction approach)较之“体验认知观”或者“文化认知观”具有更充分的理论描述性和更强的解释力,能够更恰当地阐释隐喻普遍性和变异性的本质特征。隐喻这一普遍认知现象是身体经验、语言和文化三者互动的结晶。更多还原

【Abstract】 The embodiment thesis views the more abstract target domains of cognition (mind) as based on concrete source domains such as the human body (parts). As a result, the human body plays a crucial role in the creation of meaning and its understanding. The present study takes the interactive view of embodiment and offers a corpus-based and comparative analysis of various conceptualizations of the body (parts), the heart and the head, for inner life experiences both in English and Chinese. It explores the universality and variation in metaphor as well as the cultural basis of metaphorical conceptualization in order to establish significant links between the universal conceptualizations of the body, the respective linguistic expressions and the culture specificity of body metaphors in different cultures.The primary aim of this study is to reexamine the role of the body in abstract conceptualizations by exploring body and culture as groundings of metaphor, and this line of research is deemed as a new and promising trend to seek out language-mind-culture interactions in metaphor studies. The second aim is to address the critical methodological issues about systematic identification of linguistic and conceptual metaphors in natural data from large-scale corpora. The present study is expected (a) to contribute to the understanding of the cultural basis of metaphor and hopefully to provide new insights into the claim that metaphor arises from body-language-culture interactions; and (b) to shed light on inductive methods of metaphor identification in general.The present study is concerned with the symbolic dimension of metaphor in both language and thought and does not involve the cognitive process and its cognitive representation in language user’s mind. Metaphor research in language and thought needs their own methods of metaphor identification and analysis. This study is innovative in methodology by employing the Pragglejaz Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) for identifying linguistic metaphors, and the WordNet and SUMO method for identifying conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors. The MIP method is only concerned with identifying linguistic metaphors, not conceptual structures of them. The conceptual structures of linguistic metaphors are addressed separately with the WordNet and SUMO method that adds transparency to the procedure. The methodological separation between identifying linguistic and conceptual metaphors has a clear advantage over the top-down approach that would start out from conceptual metaphors in the study of metaphor in language and thought.Comparison of English and Chinese leads to the identification of the following similarities and differences:(a) Metaphor is indeed pervasive in language and metaphorical uses are as frequent as or more frequent than literal uses. Linguistic metaphors are related systematically to each other, with fixed and semi-fixed expressions as a major indicator of metaphorical uses; and (b) Two conceptual metaphors for mental life, HEAD/HEART AS A CONTAINER and HEAD/HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION, are found in English and Chinese. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency or conventionality of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEAD AS A CONTAINER in English and HEART AS AN OBJECT OF MANIPULATION in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for mental life respectively; and (c) Both English and Chinese share the conceptual metaphors HEART AS AN OBJECT, HEART AS A CONTAINER, and HEART AS MOTION for emotional life. A difference seems to exist in terms of degree of saliency (or conventionality) of the shared conceptual metaphors, with HEART AS AN OBJECT in English and HEART AS A CONTAINER in Chinese as the most productive metaphor for emotional life respectively. The difference in saliency of the shared conceptual metaphors is a reflection of the relative preferential conceptualizations of body (parts) for inner life experiences in two different cultures.The findings of the study suggest a significant role of the body (parts) in the conceptualizations of inner life experiences in English and Chinese. In addition, cross-cultural variations in metaphor are observable in the "range of the target" that the two languages and cultures have available for the conceptualizations of the head and/or the heart. The following cross-cultural variations in metaphor are noted:(a) English uses two source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize mental life. HEART AS A LOCATION, HEART AS MOTION, and HEART AS LIGHT, are alternative metaphors for mental life in Chinese; and (b) English employs three source domains, while Chinese selects five source domains to characterize emotional life. HEART AS HEAT and HEART AS FOOD are alternative metaphors for emotional life in the Chinese language. The underlying reason is that the "range of the source domains" is extended in the Chinese language and culture, resulting in the cross-cultural variations in English and Chinese.The conceptualizations of human body (parts) as seats of emotional and mental life reveal different cultural models in the two languages and cultures. The major loci of cognition (mental life) are revealed to be in the head region and the heart region in English and Chinese respectively. The English language displays cerebrocentrism and dualism between the head as the locus of thought and the heart as the locus of emotions, while Chinese displays a holistic heart-centering conceptualization (or cardiocentrism), with the heart as the locus of both thought and emotions. The underlying reason for the difference between the conceptualizations of the heart, seems to lie in the general trends of philosophical thought in the English and Chinese cultures. As language is part of the cultural system, the conceptualizations of the body (parts) are indeed a phenomenon at the cultural level of cognition.The overall claim of the study is that the interaction approach to body and culture as grounding of metaphor is descriptively more adequate and has greater explanatory power in accounting for both universality and variation in metaphor than either the "embodied cognition" or the "cultural cognition" approach. Metaphor is a widespread phenomenon that occurs in the interactions of body, language, and culture.更多还原