發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-12-18 04:58

【摘要】：1980年, LakoffJohnson在合著Metaphors We Live By中突破性地從認(rèn)知角度詮釋隱喻，將隱喻研究范疇從單純的語(yǔ)言體系轉(zhuǎn)換為人類思維概念系統(tǒng)。Charteris-Black(2004)進(jìn)一步地提出了新的隱喻理論框架，即批評(píng)隱喻分析。通過(guò)綜合運(yùn)用批評(píng)語(yǔ)篇分析、語(yǔ)料庫(kù)語(yǔ)言學(xué)、認(rèn)知語(yǔ)言學(xué)和語(yǔ)用學(xué)的研究方法分析隱喻。批評(píng)隱喻分析探討了隱喻表達(dá)與客觀語(yǔ)境間的關(guān)系，揭示了其背后隱藏的意識(shí)形態(tài)功能以及社會(huì)文化因素。 國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者運(yùn)用批評(píng)隱喻分析方法對(duì)中美政治語(yǔ)篇中的隱喻進(jìn)行了一部分研究,然而他們主要關(guān)注的是政黨、總統(tǒng)就職演說(shuō)和政治政策等話題,對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人新年致辭這方面沒(méi)有進(jìn)行過(guò)相關(guān)分析，而事實(shí)上領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人新年致辭是一種典型的政治語(yǔ)篇形式。其不僅傳達(dá)了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的新年祝福和希望，還會(huì)提及方方面面，比如發(fā)表當(dāng)年的經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)，民生問(wèn)題和安全問(wèn)題等。 本文采用定量研究和定性研究相結(jié)合的方法，以概念隱喻理論為基本的理論框架，運(yùn)用批評(píng)性隱喻分析法（包括隱喻識(shí)別、隱喻分析和隱喻說(shuō)明）對(duì)比分析了從2003年到2013年中美領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人新年致辭的語(yǔ)料。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)比研究最近十年中美兩國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人20篇新年致辭中的概念隱喻，本研究解決了以下問(wèn)題:(1)分別找出了兩國(guó)新年致辭語(yǔ)篇中典型的概念隱喻;(2)總結(jié)了兩國(guó)新年致辭語(yǔ)篇中隱喻的異同點(diǎn)并揭示出其隱含的深層因素。本文對(duì)比研究證明：一方面，英語(yǔ)政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人演講語(yǔ)篇和漢語(yǔ)政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人演講語(yǔ)篇中存在相同或相似的概念隱喻并非偶然，而是源自隱喻概念經(jīng)驗(yàn)基礎(chǔ)的自然結(jié)果。說(shuō)英語(yǔ)的美國(guó)人和說(shuō)漢語(yǔ)的中國(guó)人擁有大量相同或相似的身體經(jīng)驗(yàn)和體驗(yàn)，而人類的認(rèn)知活動(dòng)根植于這些體驗(yàn)，，因此從中直接產(chǎn)生大量類似的概念結(jié)構(gòu)不足為奇。另一方面，英漢兩種政治語(yǔ)言中的隱喻認(rèn)知由于受到各自語(yǔ)言文化和世界觀的影響，呈現(xiàn)出不同的個(gè)性和差異。結(jié)果，不同文化環(huán)境里的使用者選擇不同的概念隱喻對(duì)世界進(jìn)行概念化和范疇化。本文發(fā)現(xiàn)了其異同點(diǎn)，挖掘出兩種語(yǔ)言出現(xiàn)異同概念隱喻的深層原因，進(jìn)一步論證了在漢語(yǔ)政治語(yǔ)篇中抽象概念在本質(zhì)上也是隱喻的這一觀點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:In 1980, LakoffJohnson interpreted metaphor from a cognitive perspective in his co-author Metaphors We Live By, transforming the category of metaphorical studies from a simple linguistic system to a conceptual system of human thinking. Charteris-Black (2004) further proposed a new framework of metaphor theory. That is, critical metaphor analysis. Metaphor is analyzed by using critical discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. The critical metaphorical analysis explores the relationship between metaphorical expression and objective context and reveals the underlying ideological functions and sociocultural factors. Scholars at home and abroad have used critical metaphorical analysis to study metaphors in Chinese and American political discourses. However, they are mainly concerned with political parties, presidential inaugural speeches and political policies. There is no relevant analysis of leaders' New year's address, which is in fact a typical political discourse. It not only conveys the New year's wishes and hopes of leaders, but also refers to various aspects, such as the economic situation, livelihood issues and security issues of the year. In this paper, we combine quantitative and qualitative studies, take conceptual metaphor theory as the basic theoretical framework and use critical metaphorical analysis (including metaphor recognition). Metaphorical analysis and metaphorical explanation) A comparative analysis of Chinese and American leaders' New year's speeches from 2003 to 2013. Through a comparative study of conceptual metaphors in 20 New year's speeches by leaders of China and the United States in the past ten years, this study solves the following problems: (1) the typical conceptual metaphors in the New year's speeches of the two countries are found; (2) the similarities and differences of metaphors in New year's speeches between the two countries are summarized and the underlying factors are revealed. On the one hand, the existence of the same or similar conceptual metaphors in English political leaders' speech discourse and Chinese political leaders' speech discourse is not accidental, but the natural result derived from the empirical basis of metaphorical concepts. English-speaking Americans and Chinese-speaking Chinese have a lot of the same or similar physical experience and experience, and human cognitive activities are rooted in these experiences, so it is not surprising that a large number of similar conceptual structures are directly generated from these experiences. On the other hand, the metaphorical cognition in English and Chinese political languages shows different personality and difference because of the influence of their language culture and world view. As a result, users in different cultural environments choose different conceptual metaphors to conceptualize and categorize the world. This paper finds out the similarities and differences between the two languages, excavates the underlying reasons for the similarities and differences between the two languages, and further demonstrates the view that abstract concepts are also metaphorical in essence in Chinese political discourse.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：重慶師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：H15;H315

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 丁建新,廖益清;批評(píng)話語(yǔ)分析述評(píng)[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2001年04期

2 胡家英;李海艷;;從批評(píng)隱喻分析視角淺析政治演講中的概念隱喻——以?shī)W巴馬校園演講為例[J];東北農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年06期

3 張立英;徐勇;;從語(yǔ)料庫(kù)看英漢隱喻模式的異同——以愛(ài)情隱喻和理智隱喻為例[J];解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

4 郜麗娜;高鴻雁;劉青;;批評(píng)隱喻分析視角下的意識(shí)形態(tài)研究——兼評(píng)《批評(píng)隱喻分析之語(yǔ)料庫(kù)研究方法》[J];牡丹江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年11期

5 鳳群;;隱喻和政治神話的實(shí)現(xiàn):美國(guó)總統(tǒng)演講的批評(píng)隱喻分析——從里根到奧巴馬[J];解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

6 陳勇;劉肇云;;隱喻政治與政治隱喻:論美國(guó)政治家的政治隱喻[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2009年01期

7 辛斌;批評(píng)性語(yǔ)篇分析方法論[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2002年06期

8 陳中竺;語(yǔ)篇與意識(shí)形態(tài)：批評(píng)性語(yǔ)將分析──對(duì)兩條罷工新聞的分析[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1995年03期

9 辛斌;語(yǔ)言、權(quán)力與意識(shí)形態(tài):批評(píng)語(yǔ)言學(xué)[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);1996年01期

10 紀(jì)玉華;陳燕;;批評(píng)話語(yǔ)分析的新方法：批評(píng)隱喻分析[J];廈門大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年06期

本文編號(hào)：2385382