【摘要】：神話的研究歷史源遠流長，在西方，關于神話的研究最早可以追溯到古希臘時期，如以格林兄弟為代表的神話學派、以泰勒為代表的人類學派等等；與此同時，中國神話研究也持續(xù)了百年之久。但是仔細回顧了中西神話的研究歷程之后，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，采用語言學的方法對神話展開的研究少之又少。本文的目標是采用語言學的方法，從詞、句、語篇三個角度對選取的戰(zhàn)爭神話展開研究，以期發(fā)現(xiàn)中西在早期思維特征、中英語言語法特征以及語篇等方面的異同。 本文基于黃帝蚩尤之戰(zhàn)以及宙斯提坦神之戰(zhàn)神話語篇，首先回顧了中西神話學的研究歷程；然后采用語言學的方法，分別以中國訓詁學以及西方歷史比較語言學的方法、Hockett’s IA model以及Halliday、Hasan的銜接理論，分別從詞（神名）、神話語句以及神話語篇三個層次展開神名詞源、中國古文言文以及英語語句語法特征、以及中西神話語篇的邏輯銜接和敘述模式的研究。最后，借助中西方思維方式以及哲學觀的闡述對以上研究成果做出了語言哲學解釋。通過研究，作者得到了以下發(fā)現(xiàn)，中西戰(zhàn)爭神話既存在相似之處，又有不同。相似之處在于其神話語篇的敘述模式，即選取的神話的語篇中均存在相同的人物角色設定以及故事情節(jié)。不同在于，1）在神名方面，上古時期兩個民族的原始初民思維具有一定的共相性，即萬物皆有靈，因而諸如風、雨、雷電等自然現(xiàn)象在原始初民看來都是神的意志和行為；2）在神話語句方面，一方面，這兩種不同語言在包括語序、詞類活用、句式等方面有著驚人的語法相似；另一方面，在相似的句式或者語法現(xiàn)象中，詞語，短語和句子的具體構成上卻有很大的不同；3）在語篇層次上，古文言文以意合為主，因而中國神話語篇短小精湛，句際間沒有明顯的邏輯連接詞，是讀者責任性的語言；而英語以形合為主，句子之間有明顯的邏輯連接詞，而且句中詞類會根據(jù)語篇環(huán)境的變化有相應的形態(tài)格式，因而是作者責任性的語言。作者發(fā)現(xiàn)，借助中西不同的哲學觀以及思維特征，可以解釋中西神話語篇中存在的諸多不同。“天人合一”以及與此密切相關聯(lián)的整體性思維是中國古代哲學最為典型的特征之一，這不僅極大地促成了中國語言，尤其是古漢語以意合為主要特征，而且還影響了神話語篇的結局設定，即必定是象征著和諧、穩(wěn)定的黃帝才是最終的勝利者。而西方哲學注重抽象、邏輯和理性，在這一思維的影響下，，一方面西方的語言逐漸發(fā)展為一種分析性、抽象性、理性的語言，并以形合為主要特征；另一方面，大量精確的數(shù)字運用于戰(zhàn)爭神話的描述之中。
[Abstract]:The study of mythology has a long history. In the West, the study of mythology can be traced back to the ancient Greek period, such as the mythology school represented by the Grimm brothers, the human school represented by Taylor and so on. At the same time, the study of Chinese mythology also lasted for a hundred years. However, after a careful review of the research process of Chinese and Western mythology, we can find that there are very few researches on mythology by linguistic methods. The aim of this thesis is to study the selected war myths from three angles of word, sentence and discourse, and to find out the similarities and differences between the Chinese and the western countries in the early thinking characteristics, the grammatical features of Chinese and English languages and the discourse. Based on the War of the Yellow Emperor Chiyou and the discourse of the God of War of Zeus, this paper reviews the course of the study of Chinese and Western mythology. Then using the linguistic method, respectively using the Chinese Exegetics and the Western Comparative Linguistics method, Hockett's IA model and Halliday,Hasan 's cohesion theory, respectively, from the word (God's name), There are three levels of mythical sentences and mythological discourses: the source of divine nouns, the grammatical features of ancient Chinese classical Chinese and English sentences, and the logical cohesion and narrative models of Chinese and Western mythical discourse. Finally, with the help of Chinese and western thinking mode and the elaboration of philosophy view, this paper makes a philosophical explanation of the above research results. Through the study, the author finds that there are similarities and differences between Chinese and Western war myths. The similarity lies in the narrative pattern of its mythical discourse, that is, the same character role setting and story plot in the selected mythological discourse. The difference lies in: 1) in the aspect of the name of God, the thinking of primitive people of the two nations in ancient times had a certain commonality, that is, all things were animate, so natural phenomena such as wind, rain, thunder and lightning were all the will and behavior of God in the primitive people; 2) in the aspect of mythological sentences, on the one hand, the two different languages have striking grammatical similarities in terms of word order, part of speech usage, sentence structure, and so on; On the other hand, in the similar sentence structure or grammatical phenomenon, the concrete constitution of words, phrases and sentences is quite different; 3) at the discourse level, the ancient classical Chinese is mainly parataxis, so the Chinese mythological discourse is short and exquisite, and there are no obvious logical connectors between sentences, so it is the reader's responsible language; However, English is dominated by hypotaxis, with obvious logical connectives between sentences, and parts of speech in sentences have corresponding morphological forms according to the change of discourse environment, so they are the responsible language of the author. The author finds that many differences in Chinese and Western mythological discourse can be explained by the different philosophic views and thinking characteristics of Chinese and western countries. One of the most typical features of ancient Chinese philosophy is "the unity of nature and man" and its closely related holistic thinking, which not only contributes greatly to the Chinese language, especially ancient Chinese, but also takes parataxis as the main feature. It also influences the endings of mythological discourse, that is, the stable Yellow Emperor is the ultimate victor. Western philosophy pays attention to abstraction, logic and rationality. Under the influence of this thinking, on the one hand, the western language gradually develops into an analytical, abstract and rational language with the main characteristics of hypotaxis. On the other hand, a large number of precise numbers are used in the description of war myths.
【學位授予單位】：上海師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H15;H315

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊亦軍;古希臘神話與人本思想[J];北京化工大學學報(社會科學版);2002年03期

2 徐新建;;“蚩尤”和“黃帝”:族源故事再檢討[J];廣西民族大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2008年05期

3 石朝江;;蚩尤與炎黃逐鹿中原考[J];貴州師范大學學報(社會科學版);2010年01期

4 趙林;論希臘神話與中國神話的文化意蘊[J];江漢論壇;1995年02期

5 鄒文貴;;先秦戰(zhàn)爭神話簡論[J];吉林省教育學院學報;2009年12期

6 田兆元;重新認識傳說時代的古史系統(tǒng)[J];史林;1998年03期

7 段寶林;蚩尤考[J];民族文學研究;1998年04期

8 楊亦軍;略論古希臘神話“個體中心”的文化內涵[J];四川師范大學學報(社會科學版);2002年05期

9 紀琳;古希臘神話的人本精神及對西方文化的影響[J];山東師大外國語學院學報;2001年02期

10 楊勇勤;;論希臘神話中的榮譽觀[J];時代文學(下半月);2009年02期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 鄒景陽;走出神話的帷幕——中西早期神話中的悲劇意識及其對文學精神和文學主題的影響[D];暨南大學;2001年

2 楊德煜;希臘神話傳說中的復仇主題探究[D];上海師范大學;2004年

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 夏雷;黃帝及其在華夏族形成中的歷史作用[D];延安大學;2011年

本文編號：2381413