英漢工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞的ICM對比研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-21 11:19
【摘要】：本文以Lakoff（1987）提出的概念化認(rèn)知模型ICM（Idealized Cognitive Model）為理論視點，考察英漢兩種語言中工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞（文中稱之為IDV）的意義構(gòu)建過程，旨在通過分析ICM三個子模型（意象圖式模型，隱喻模型，轉(zhuǎn)喻模型）各自的應(yīng)用條件和要求，歸納出英漢語中工具類名詞在名轉(zhuǎn)動過程中所采用的認(rèn)知模型有何相同與不同之處，為其意義構(gòu)建過程提供解釋性框架。 本文假設(shè)英漢語工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞在意義構(gòu)建過程中不僅都采用了意象圖式模型，隱喻模型和轉(zhuǎn)喻模型，且涉及了一種新模型---轉(zhuǎn)喻-隱喻連續(xù)體模型。本文采取定性研究的方法，對英漢語中的工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞進(jìn)行研究。研究數(shù)據(jù)來源于自建語料庫。語料主要來自朗文當(dāng)代高級英語辭典、現(xiàn)代漢語詞典、百度和谷歌搜索引擎。 本研究擬解決以下問題：1）IDV的主要認(rèn)知模型有哪幾種？2）IDV的意義是如何構(gòu)建的？3）英漢語的IDV意義構(gòu)建各自傾向于選用何種認(rèn)知模型？4）英漢IDV所選認(rèn)知模型的相同和不同之處在哪里？原因何在？ 經(jīng)過討論分析，本研究得到如下發(fā)現(xiàn)： 1）英漢語工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞的意義構(gòu)建都涉及意象圖式模型，轉(zhuǎn)喻模型，隱喻模型和轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體模型四種認(rèn)知模型，但后三種認(rèn)知模型在其意義構(gòu)建過程中更為重要。 2）對IDV而言，轉(zhuǎn)喻模型比隱喻模型更為基礎(chǔ)，前者為后者提供心理和邏輯基礎(chǔ)，繼而二者形成轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體語義鏈。 3）英語IDV傾向于使用轉(zhuǎn)喻模型和轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體模型來構(gòu)建意義，較少使用隱喻。而漢語IDV則傾向使用隱喻和隱喻意義的擴展來構(gòu)建意義，較少使用轉(zhuǎn)喻模型和轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體模型。 4）英語IDV主要選用FUNCTION FOR ACTION和PART FOR WHOLE+FUNCTION FOR ACTION兩種轉(zhuǎn)喻模型和基于源域和標(biāo)域在形狀、結(jié)果和狀態(tài)上的相似性的隱喻模型，其形成的轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體語義鏈也是從簡單到復(fù)雜，邏輯清晰。而漢語IDV主要選擇FUNCTION FOR ACTION這種轉(zhuǎn)喻模型和基于源域和標(biāo)域在形狀、結(jié)果、狀態(tài)和過程上的相似性的隱喻模型和隱喻意義擴展，其形成的轉(zhuǎn)隱喻連續(xù)體語義鏈也相對簡單。概因人類共同的認(rèn)知能力和規(guī)律以及外部環(huán)境中的諸多共同點，英漢語工具類名轉(zhuǎn)動詞選用的認(rèn)知模型種類并無太大差異。但又由于不同的語言習(xí)慣和心理特征，兩種語言所選用的認(rèn)知模型存在具體差異也是必然的。 本研究結(jié)果有望增強ICM的解釋力，并對工具類名詞詞性轉(zhuǎn)換的相關(guān)研究提供一個嶄新的視角和研究方法，同時也給語言習(xí)得、英語教學(xué)、對外漢語教學(xué)、人工智能翻譯等提供有價值的參考。
[Abstract]:Taking ICM (Idealized Cognitive Model), a conceptual cognitive model proposed by Lakoff (1987), as the theoretical point of view, this paper examines the meaning construction process of tool name rotation words (IDV) in both English and Chinese. The purpose of this study is to analyze the three submodels of ICM (image schema model). This paper summarizes the similarities and differences between the cognitive models of instrumental nouns in the process of nomenclature rotation in English and Chinese, and provides an explanatory framework for the process of meaning construction. In this paper, we assume that in the process of meaning construction, we not only adopt image schema model, metaphor model and metonymy model, but also involve a new model-metonymy-metaphorical continuum model. In this paper, the qualitative research method is adopted to study the instrumental class name transfer verbs in English and Chinese. The data are derived from a self-built corpus. The corpus mainly comes from Longman Advanced English Dictionary, Modern Chinese Dictionary, Baidu and Google search engine. This study intends to solve the following problems: 1) what are the main cognitive models of IDV? 2) how does the meaning of IDV be constructed? 3) which cognitive models tend to be chosen for IDV construction in English and Chinese? 4) the same cognitive models chosen by IDV in English and Chinese What's the difference? Why? After discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are obtained: 1) the construction of the meaning of metonymy transverbs in English and Chinese involves four cognitive models: image schema model, metonymy model, metaphorical model and metaphorical continuum model; However, the latter three cognitive models are more important in the process of meaning construction. 2) for IDV, metonymy model is more basic than metonymy model, the former provides psychological and logical basis for the latter. Then they form the semantic chain of metaphorical continuum. 3) English IDV tends to use metonymy model and metaphorical continuum model to construct meaning. On the other hand, Chinese IDV tends to use metaphor and the extension of metaphorical meaning to construct meaning. English IDV mainly uses FUNCTION FOR ACTION and PART FOR WHOLE FUNCTION FOR ACTION metonymy models and metonymy models based on the similarity between source domain and scalar domain in shape, result and state. 4) English IDV mainly uses metonymy model and metonymy model. The semantic chain of metaphorical continuum is from simple to complex, and its logic is clear. Chinese IDV mainly chooses FUNCTION FOR ACTION metonymy model and metaphorical model based on the similarity of source domain and scalar domain in shape, result, state and process, and the extension of metaphorical meaning. The semantic chain of metaphorical continuum is also relatively simple. Due to the common cognitive abilities and laws of human beings and many common elements in the external environment, there is no significant difference in the types of cognitive models used in the choice of instrumental nomenclature transverbs in English and Chinese. However, due to different language habits and psychological characteristics, it is inevitable that there are specific differences in cognitive models between the two languages. The results of this study are expected to enhance the explanatory power of ICM, and to provide a new perspective and research method for the research on the conversion of instrumental nouns into parts of speech, as well as for language acquisition, English teaching, and teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Artificial intelligence translation and so on provides the valuable reference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：H314;H146
本文編號：2284943
[Abstract]:Taking ICM (Idealized Cognitive Model), a conceptual cognitive model proposed by Lakoff (1987), as the theoretical point of view, this paper examines the meaning construction process of tool name rotation words (IDV) in both English and Chinese. The purpose of this study is to analyze the three submodels of ICM (image schema model). This paper summarizes the similarities and differences between the cognitive models of instrumental nouns in the process of nomenclature rotation in English and Chinese, and provides an explanatory framework for the process of meaning construction. In this paper, we assume that in the process of meaning construction, we not only adopt image schema model, metaphor model and metonymy model, but also involve a new model-metonymy-metaphorical continuum model. In this paper, the qualitative research method is adopted to study the instrumental class name transfer verbs in English and Chinese. The data are derived from a self-built corpus. The corpus mainly comes from Longman Advanced English Dictionary, Modern Chinese Dictionary, Baidu and Google search engine. This study intends to solve the following problems: 1) what are the main cognitive models of IDV? 2) how does the meaning of IDV be constructed? 3) which cognitive models tend to be chosen for IDV construction in English and Chinese? 4) the same cognitive models chosen by IDV in English and Chinese What's the difference? Why? After discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are obtained: 1) the construction of the meaning of metonymy transverbs in English and Chinese involves four cognitive models: image schema model, metonymy model, metaphorical model and metaphorical continuum model; However, the latter three cognitive models are more important in the process of meaning construction. 2) for IDV, metonymy model is more basic than metonymy model, the former provides psychological and logical basis for the latter. Then they form the semantic chain of metaphorical continuum. 3) English IDV tends to use metonymy model and metaphorical continuum model to construct meaning. On the other hand, Chinese IDV tends to use metaphor and the extension of metaphorical meaning to construct meaning. English IDV mainly uses FUNCTION FOR ACTION and PART FOR WHOLE FUNCTION FOR ACTION metonymy models and metonymy models based on the similarity between source domain and scalar domain in shape, result and state. 4) English IDV mainly uses metonymy model and metonymy model. The semantic chain of metaphorical continuum is from simple to complex, and its logic is clear. Chinese IDV mainly chooses FUNCTION FOR ACTION metonymy model and metaphorical model based on the similarity of source domain and scalar domain in shape, result, state and process, and the extension of metaphorical meaning. The semantic chain of metaphorical continuum is also relatively simple. Due to the common cognitive abilities and laws of human beings and many common elements in the external environment, there is no significant difference in the types of cognitive models used in the choice of instrumental nomenclature transverbs in English and Chinese. However, due to different language habits and psychological characteristics, it is inevitable that there are specific differences in cognitive models between the two languages. The results of this study are expected to enhance the explanatory power of ICM, and to provide a new perspective and research method for the research on the conversion of instrumental nouns into parts of speech, as well as for language acquisition, English teaching, and teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Artificial intelligence translation and so on provides the valuable reference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：H314;H146
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條
1 牛保義;名轉(zhuǎn)動結(jié)構(gòu)式中的功能代謝問題研究[J];外語學(xué)刊;2002年01期
2 高芳,徐盛桓;名動轉(zhuǎn)用與語用推理[J];外國語(上海外國語大學(xué)學(xué)報);2000年02期
3 高芳;名動轉(zhuǎn)用與含意[J];外語教學(xué);2002年02期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 王文斌;隱喻構(gòu)建與解讀的主體自洽[D];上海外國語大學(xué);2005年
，本文編號：2284943
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/kejilunwen/sousuoyinqinglunwen/2284943.html
最近更新
教材專著
