【作者】 樊朝辉；

【导师】 陈治安；

【作者基本信息】 西南师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 从亚里斯多德伊始，转喻和隐喻现象就受到了众多学科的关注，如哲学、修辞学、语言学等。也正是从亚氏开始，转喻和隐喻被看作是修辞格，人们使用之目的是为了增强雄辩力或获得修辞效果。自上世纪八十年代初，雷科夫和约翰逊的著作《我们赖以生存的隐喻》问世以来，认知语言学家们在这两种修辞格的研究上做出了许多新的发现。尤其是隐喻，被认为是人类思维的重要方式。但是，相比较而言，对转喻的研究稍逊一筹。关于转喻的理论论述，如转喻的本质、结构、工作机制及功能等，或者依附于隐喻理论，或者零散结集，未成体系。有鉴于此，本文认为对转喻进行一个全面的、综合的探讨是非常有意义的，也是非常必要的。 传统观认为转喻是在两个相联系的事物中，以一事物名称来指代另一事物名称。本文所持的认知观认为转喻是一种认知过程，其本质是概念的，因此转喻和隐喻一样也是人类重要的思维方式之一，它基于经验基础并受一般的认知原则支配。转喻和隐喻一样建构着人们的思想和行为，在人类的概念系统运作中，转喻使人们可以通过一个概念体(喻体)来理解另一个概念体(本体)，而这两个概念体是在同一个概念结构中，如理想化认知模型，框架，图景，心理空间。 本文主要讨论了五个方面的问题：第一，转喻与理想化认知模型的关系；第二，概念临近性是解释转喻认知本质的核心问题，在理想化认知模型及框架、图景和心理空间这些概念结构中，概念临近性是如何实现的；第三，如何区别转喻与隐喻，转喻与借代；第四，概念转喻及概念表达式的分类；第五，转喻理论在语义与语用方面的实践运用。 前三个问题主要是证明转喻的概念本质。概念临近性是转喻实现的基础，它存在于人类的概念结构中，也就是说，在人类的概念体系中，概念与概念之间产生了大量的临近关系。另外，长期以来，转喻和隐喻以及转喻和借代之间的关系也是学者们的关注点，本文从现代认知学的角度给予了新的阐释。 由于研究方法和侧重点不同，对于概念转喻的分类也存在很大分歧，其主要原因是研究者们在进行分类时，未能概括出所有可能出现的临近性关系。本文借助子雷科夫(1987)提出的理想化认知模型(ICM)来分析转喻的类型，论证了转喻发生于两种结构中:ICM整体与其部分之间，ICM部分与部分之间。这两种关系结构可以解释各种各样的概念转喻及其语言表达式。本文在提供了转喻的认知分类之后，还探讨了一些在选择常规喻体时所遵循的认知原则。 本文的另一侧重点是关于转喻在语义学和语用学这两个领域内的实践运用。在意义层面上，一些主要的语言现象如多义词、零位派生词，以及语法结构上的情态动词、直接宾语问题都涉及到了转喻的运作。在语用层面上，主要讨论了转喻在以下三个方面的语用功能:同义反复的转喻理解，间接言语行为中的转喻关系，以及转喻在实现关联理论所提出的运用最小努力获得最大语境效果的功能。 总之，本文充分证明了转喻是一种认知过程，它在本质上是概念的。转喻在我们的日常生活中被大量使用，转喻的语义和语用功能在这方面提供了更加充足的证据。更多还原

【Abstract】 Metonymy and metaphor have traditionally been recognized as figures of speech with their theories restricted in the field of rhetoric. Over the past twenty years, cognitive linguists have made a great deal of discoveries in the study of the two tropes. Their theories and findings have brought much impact on the research of the relationship between human cognition and the two figures of thought. In comparison with the vast amount of cognitive researches on metaphor, the studies on metonymy are relatively fewer. Moreover, the theories about the structure, the working mechanism, the cognitive nature and the functions of metonymy are either subjected to metaphor theories or unsystematically put forward. In view of this, the author of the dissertation believes that a comprehensive research on these topics is of great importance.In contrast with the traditional view on metonymy, which claims that metonymy is a figure of speech that operates on the name of things, this paper holds that metonymy is conceptual in nature. Metonymy, no less significant than metaphor, is part of our everyday thinking, grounded in experience, subject to general and systematic cognitive principles and structures our thoughts and actions. Metonymy is claimed, in this paper, to be a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity provides mental access to another entity,with the two entities belonging to the same conceptual space, such as an idealized cognitive model (ICM), a frame, a scenario, and a mental space. Five crucial aspects have been investigated concerning the cognitive view on metonymy: First, what are the ICMs in which metonymy most commonly occurs? Second, what is the conceptual contiguity, given some conceptual structures proposed by some other cognitive linguists, such as frames, scenarios, and mental spaces, besides the ICMs, in which we can interpret the grounding of metonymy? Third, what are the relationships between metonymy and synecdoche, metonymy and metaphor? Fourth, how are those superficially scattered conceptual metonymies classified into coherent systems so that we can categorize diversified metonymic linguistic expressions? Fifth, if the above questions are satisfactorily settled, can we apply this integrated metonymy theory into practice, in botfc the fields of semantics and pragmatics?The first three questions deal with the ultimate conceptual nature of metonymy. The notion of "contiguity" is at the core of most theories of metonymy. Conceptual contiguity is validated as the grounding of metonymy and it can be found in our conceptual structures, such as ICMs, frames, scenarios, and mental spaces. All these conceptual structures in our conceptual system can give rise to contiguous relationships where metonymies are locating. Besides, in order to further clarify the conceptual nature of metonymy, this paper presents a detailed exploration in distinguishing metonymy from metaphor and the interactive relationship in between. A distinction between metonymy and synecdoche is also exhibited.As a result of different angles of metonymic studies, in fact, typologies of metonymy among different researchers lack consistency. The reason is that there lacks an integrated cognitive framework that covers all possible contiguities. According to the cognitive processes where metonymy exists and works, ICMs are used in analyzing the metonymic typologies. Given that our knowledge about the world is organized by structured ICMs, as proposed by Lakoff (1987), which we perceive as wholes with parts, metonymic relationship is proved to appear in two situational configurations: whole ICM and its parts, parts of an ICM. The two configurations can account for various conceptual metonymies that are conventional and entrenched in our language and cognition. Besides the presentation of a cognitive typology of metonymy, some cognitive principles that governthe selection of typical vehicles are discussed as well.The application of the functions of metonymy at both the semantic level and the discourse level is another inter更多还原