本文選題：空間量度形容詞 + 英語(yǔ)��； 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2017年博士論文

【摘要】：空間概念是人類(lèi)普遍概念,空間量度形容詞系統(tǒng)是英、漢語(yǔ)中皆有的詞匯系統(tǒng)。國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者針對(duì)空間量度形容詞的形態(tài)、句法功能、語(yǔ)義和習(xí)得進(jìn)行了一系列研究,對(duì)英、漢語(yǔ)中個(gè)別空間量度形容詞詞對(duì)進(jìn)行了對(duì)比。但是以往研究沒(méi)有涉及英、漢空間量度形容詞的轉(zhuǎn)喻義,沒(méi)有就英、漢空間量度形容詞系統(tǒng)及所有成員的空間義、轉(zhuǎn)喻義和隱喻義進(jìn)行全面的對(duì)比,所以無(wú)法看到空間量度形容詞語(yǔ)義的全貌。此外,以往的研究層面也比較單一,側(cè)重于英、漢空間量度形容詞的共時(shí)層面研究,沒(méi)有考慮它們歷時(shí)的發(fā)展變化。語(yǔ)義來(lái)源于身體經(jīng)驗(yàn),人類(lèi)在與世界的反復(fù)互動(dòng)中形成了意象圖式。通過(guò)意象圖式的轉(zhuǎn)換和向抽象域的映射產(chǎn)生了轉(zhuǎn)喻和隱喻,轉(zhuǎn)喻和隱喻是詞義擴(kuò)展的基本途徑。不同語(yǔ)言的使用者在基本層面上有相同的概念,但在組合層面上往往存在不同的語(yǔ)義概念和抽象概念,這就是新沃爾夫假說(shuō)。本文在上述認(rèn)知語(yǔ)義視角下針對(duì)英、漢空間量度形容詞的空間義、轉(zhuǎn)喻狀況及隱喻映射域進(jìn)行歷時(shí)和共時(shí)相結(jié)合的對(duì)比研究,旨在回答以下問(wèn)題:(1)英、漢空間量度形容詞的空間義的異同及其成因是什么?(2)英、漢空間量度形容詞的轉(zhuǎn)喻類(lèi)型有哪些?英、漢空間量度形容詞的轉(zhuǎn)喻狀況的異同及其成因是什么?(3)英、漢空間量度形容詞隱喻映射域的異同及其成因是什么?在以上所述的認(rèn)知語(yǔ)義視角下,本研究首先根據(jù)空間量度形容詞凸顯的維度對(duì)它們進(jìn)行分類(lèi),采用詞典和語(yǔ)料庫(kù)相結(jié)合的方法對(duì)詞義進(jìn)行靜態(tài)和動(dòng)態(tài)相結(jié)合的分析,主要采取質(zhì)化分析的方法對(duì)空間量度形容詞的使用進(jìn)行傾向性研究。本文中空間量度形容詞的釋義來(lái)源于《牛津英漢高階雙解詞典》(第8版)和《現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)詞典》(第6版)兩本共時(shí)詞典,對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)喻引起的英、漢空間量度形容詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)和轉(zhuǎn)義現(xiàn)象的分析主要依靠歷時(shí)詞典Oxford English Dictionary(網(wǎng)絡(luò)版)和漢語(yǔ)大辭典軟件(普及版)中的歷時(shí)數(shù)據(jù)。共時(shí)語(yǔ)料主要來(lái)源于以空間量度形容詞為檢索詞從BNC語(yǔ)料庫(kù)和語(yǔ)料庫(kù)在線中檢索到的詞頻和用例,根據(jù)檢索到的語(yǔ)料,分析空間量度形容詞與相應(yīng)的詞匯搭配是用作空間義還是發(fā)生了隱喻化,如果用作空間義,判別在所述語(yǔ)境表達(dá)維度義、位置義還是距離義,然后歸納使用中的轉(zhuǎn)喻類(lèi)型和認(rèn)知機(jī)制。如果用作隱喻義,判別使用中的隱喻映射域。在以上分析的基礎(chǔ)上,我們歸納英、漢空間量度形容詞空間義、轉(zhuǎn)喻狀況和隱喻映射域的異同并嘗試做出解釋。本研究有以下發(fā)現(xiàn):(1)英、漢語(yǔ)中有基本對(duì)應(yīng)的空間量度形容詞詞對(duì),兩個(gè)系統(tǒng)成員都表征相同的語(yǔ)義元素,能表達(dá)相同的空間義類(lèi)型。體積和長(zhǎng)度是英、漢語(yǔ)中空間量度的基本概念,這體現(xiàn)了空間認(rèn)知中整體性和凸顯性相結(jié)合的原則。在使用中表高度義和深度義的英、漢空間量度形容詞描述方向發(fā)生泛化,表整體維度和寬度的詞凸顯維度數(shù)目都發(fā)生了泛化,英、漢空間量度形容詞都出現(xiàn)在維度義、距離義和位置義之間轉(zhuǎn)移的現(xiàn)象。兩種語(yǔ)言中空間量度形容詞語(yǔ)義系統(tǒng)的結(jié)構(gòu)有細(xì)微的差別,英語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞數(shù)目略多于漢語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞的數(shù)目。英語(yǔ)中距離、高度、寬度以及整體維度的概念化和表征更詳細(xì),漢語(yǔ)對(duì)非凸顯維度及低、矮義有比英語(yǔ)更詳細(xì)的概念化和表征方式。這說(shuō)明人類(lèi)空間量度認(rèn)知中的基本概念具有普遍性,空間量度概念上的精細(xì)度差異體現(xiàn)了組合層面上語(yǔ)義概念的差異。(2)轉(zhuǎn)喻在空間量度形容詞詞義擴(kuò)展中發(fā)揮了重要作用。英、漢空間量度形容詞在轉(zhuǎn)喻過(guò)程中發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)和轉(zhuǎn)義兩種情況。空間量度形容詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)的認(rèn)知理?yè)?jù)是同一個(gè)認(rèn)知域中各要素之間的替代關(guān)系,它們轉(zhuǎn)義的理?yè)?jù)是一個(gè)認(rèn)知域內(nèi)部部分與整體之間互相替代的過(guò)程。除了具有相同的轉(zhuǎn)喻類(lèi)別,英、漢空間量度形容詞在轉(zhuǎn)喻過(guò)程中還有以下共性:有些空間量度形容詞曾用作其他詞類(lèi)或者由其他的詞類(lèi)演化而來(lái),大多數(shù)空間量度形容詞都有向名詞、副詞、動(dòng)詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)的情況,個(gè)別有向介詞和代詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)的現(xiàn)象,但是英、漢空間量度形容詞描述關(guān)系和性質(zhì)的功能是它們現(xiàn)今典型的用法。英、漢空間量度形容詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)使用多具有非正式、臨時(shí)性和已過(guò)時(shí)的特征。轉(zhuǎn)喻引起的轉(zhuǎn)義主要有維度數(shù)目泛化和位置義與維度義之間轉(zhuǎn)移兩種情況。英、漢空間量度形容詞在轉(zhuǎn)義方面具有高度一致性,這是因?yàn)橛�、漢語(yǔ)使用者具有相同的與空間有關(guān)的意象圖式,如上-下意象圖式、路徑意象圖式、刻度意象圖式等,這些意象圖式的旋轉(zhuǎn)和變化造成了英、漢空間量度形容詞空間義的擴(kuò)展。英、漢空間量度形容詞在轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)方面存在一些差異:首先,“distant”沒(méi)有發(fā)生任何轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)現(xiàn)象,這大概與其他表達(dá)距離義的詞可以自由用作副詞和動(dòng)詞有關(guān),詞匯轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)要受其他同類(lèi)概念詞語(yǔ)的制約。第二,總體而言,英語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞的轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)現(xiàn)象更普遍。能夠用于描述動(dòng)作的方式、時(shí)長(zhǎng)和程度的漢語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞和英語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞比例相當(dāng),但是漢語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞比英語(yǔ)空間量度形容詞轉(zhuǎn)類(lèi)為副詞的比例低得多,這是漢語(yǔ)詞類(lèi)劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)造成的,所以對(duì)于詞匯進(jìn)行研究應(yīng)考慮該語(yǔ)言中詞類(lèi)劃分和語(yǔ)法構(gòu)造的問(wèn)題。(3)英、漢語(yǔ)中的空間量度形容詞向數(shù)量域、范圍規(guī)模域、等級(jí)程度域、評(píng)價(jià)域、比較域、力量強(qiáng)度域、年齡域、時(shí)間域、感知域、心智域、關(guān)系域、制度域、經(jīng)濟(jì)域映射。英、漢空間量度形容詞的隱喻比轉(zhuǎn)喻現(xiàn)象更普遍,這些隱喻義遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)地超出了詞典涵蓋的范圍。兩種語(yǔ)言中描述整體維度的詞對(duì)隱喻映射域最多,描述凸顯維度的空間量度詞的隱喻映射域比較對(duì)應(yīng)。表示同樣類(lèi)別空間義的英、漢空間量度形容詞在隱喻映射中有共同的偏好,距離常用來(lái)概念化時(shí)長(zhǎng),高度常用來(lái)概念化等級(jí)程度,面積常用來(lái)概念化范圍,體積常用來(lái)概念化重要性。英、漢空間量度形容詞詞義在隱喻映射的過(guò)程中帶上更強(qiáng)的主觀色彩。英、漢空間量度形容詞在隱喻映射的細(xì)節(jié)方面存在差異。英語(yǔ)中描述整體維度的兩對(duì)詞表現(xiàn)出不同的映射偏好,描述垂直維度的英、漢空間量度形容詞向時(shí)間域和年齡映射時(shí)存在差異,“粗、細(xì)”在隱喻映射過(guò)程中與其他詞的情感極向不同。本研究在對(duì)英、漢空間量度形容詞進(jìn)行對(duì)比研究的基礎(chǔ)上得出以下結(jié)論:第一,英、漢空間量度形容詞的對(duì)比研究支持新沃爾夫假說(shuō)的主張,即不同語(yǔ)言在基本層面的語(yǔ)義構(gòu)成方面一致。英、漢語(yǔ)使用者在空間量度概念組成、凸顯維度認(rèn)知、轉(zhuǎn)喻類(lèi)型和主要隱喻映射域方面存在比較一致的現(xiàn)象。基于共同的種系進(jìn)化背景和同樣的生存環(huán)境,英、漢語(yǔ)使用者形成了相似的空間意象圖式和相似的身體經(jīng)驗(yàn)獲得了相同的基本層面概念。英、漢空間量度形容詞隱喻的普遍性體現(xiàn)了人類(lèi)認(rèn)知中隱喻思維的普遍性,體現(xiàn)了空間認(rèn)知在思維抽象化過(guò)程中的基礎(chǔ)作用�？缯Z(yǔ)言基本概念的普遍性使得不同語(yǔ)言使用者進(jìn)行交際成為可能。但是思維和交際依靠組合層面概念,所以英、漢語(yǔ)言使用者在組合層面上概念化空間量度、詞類(lèi)轉(zhuǎn)喻、構(gòu)造抽象概念的細(xì)節(jié)方面存在一些差異。不同文化和語(yǔ)言社區(qū)中概念化具有普遍性和可變性,自然語(yǔ)言語(yǔ)義系統(tǒng)兼有普遍性和民族性。英、漢空間量度形容詞對(duì)應(yīng)詞對(duì)在隱喻映射方面的不同偏好印證了Lakoff(1987)的觀點(diǎn),即如果基本概念不同,那么依附于基本概念的擴(kuò)展義會(huì)有較大的差異。雖然隱喻映射過(guò)程中意象圖式的核心要素和整體結(jié)構(gòu)得以保留,但是隱喻映射要受到詞匯語(yǔ)義極向和語(yǔ)言使用者民族文化心理的影響�！按帧⒓�(xì)”隱喻映射中的特殊情感極向說(shuō)明只在將歷時(shí)和共時(shí)視角相結(jié)合才能發(fā)現(xiàn)語(yǔ)言形式和語(yǔ)義的認(rèn)知理?yè)?jù)。第二,本研究結(jié)果支持Halliday(2008)提出的語(yǔ)言系統(tǒng)和實(shí)例互補(bǔ)的觀點(diǎn)。本研究中通過(guò)在語(yǔ)篇語(yǔ)境中分析得出的很多詞義沒(méi)有收入詞典中,即這些隱喻映射域和詞義都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)地超出了詞典涵蓋的范圍。因?yàn)樵~典呈現(xiàn)的是詞匯語(yǔ)義的系統(tǒng)層面,語(yǔ)料庫(kù)是語(yǔ)篇的總和,在語(yǔ)料庫(kù)中檢索到的都是詞匯使用的實(shí)例,是語(yǔ)言系統(tǒng)潛勢(shì)的實(shí)現(xiàn),這些意義如果沒(méi)有獲得普遍認(rèn)可或者得以長(zhǎng)期使用就會(huì)從語(yǔ)言中逐漸消失,如果經(jīng)反復(fù)運(yùn)用固化之后有可能逐步進(jìn)入詞典,所以實(shí)例化一方面是語(yǔ)言詞匯語(yǔ)義系統(tǒng)的實(shí)現(xiàn),是詞匯語(yǔ)義系統(tǒng)的創(chuàng)新使用,另一方面一旦這些新義獲得穩(wěn)固的地位就會(huì)進(jìn)而豐富語(yǔ)言的詞匯語(yǔ)義系統(tǒng)。
[Abstract]:The concept of space is the universal concept of human being. Space measurement adjective system is a lexical system in both English and Chinese. Scholars at home and abroad have conducted a series of studies on the form, syntactic function, semantics and acquisition of spatial quantitative adjectives. The translation of adjectives in English and Chinese space is a metaphorical meaning. It does not make a comprehensive comparison between English, Chinese space measurement adjectives and all members' spatial meaning, metaphorical meaning and metaphorical meaning. Therefore, it is impossible to see the full picture of the meaning of the spatial measurement of adjectives. In addition, the previous research level is relatively single, focusing on the English and Chinese space measure adjectives in common. Time level studies do not take into account their diachronic changes. Semantic origin is derived from physical experience. Human beings have formed image schemas in repeated interactions with the world. Metonymy and metaphor are produced through the conversion of image schema and mapping to the abstract domain. Metonymy and metaphor are the basic ways to expand the meaning of words. The users of different languages are in the basic way. There are the same concepts on the level, but there are often different semantic concepts and abstract concepts at the combination level. This is the new Wolf hypothesis. In this cognitive semantic perspective, this paper compares the spatial meaning, metonymy condition and metaphorical mapping domain of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives with a comparative study of diachronic and synchronic. The following questions: (1) what are the similarities and differences of spatial meaning of the quantitative adjectives in English and Chinese space and their causes? (2) what are the metonymy types of the measure adjectives in the Han space? What are the similarities and differences of the metonymy of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives and their causes? (3) what are the similarities and differences in the metaphorical mapping domain of the Chinese spatial measurement adjectives and what are their causes? From the perspective of cognitive semantics mentioned above, this study first classifies them according to the dimensions of the prominence of the spatial measure adjectives, and uses a method of combining a dictionary and a corpus to analyze the static and dynamic combination of the meaning of the word, and mainly adopts the qualitative analysis method to study the use of spatial quantitative adjectives. The interpretation of the spatial measure adjectives from the Oxford English Chinese high order double solution Dictionary (Eighth Edition) and the modern Chinese Dictionary (Sixth Edition) are the two synchronic dictionaries. For the metonymy, the analysis of the conversion and the meaning of the adjectives in the Chinese space measure mainly depends on the diachronic dictionary Oxford English Dictionary (Network Edition) and the Chinese dictionary. Diachronic data. The synchronic language is mainly derived from the frequency and use cases retrieved from the BNC corpus and corpus online by the spatial measurement adjectives. According to the retrieved corpus, the analysis of the spatial measure adjectives and the corresponding lexical collocations is used as space meaning or metaphorically metaphorically, if used as space On the basis of the above analysis, we sum up the similarities and differences of the spatial meaning of the adjectives, the metonymy and the metaphorical mapping domain. The following findings have been made. The following findings are as follows: (1) there is a basic corresponding spatial measure of adjective words in Chinese, and the two system members represent the same semantic elements and can express the same spatial semantic type. Volume and length are the basic concepts of spatial measurement in English and Chinese, which embodies the integral and convex dominance of spatial cognition. The principle of combination. In the use of high meaning and depth sense in the use of the table, Chinese space measure adjectives are generalized. The number of dimensions and dimensions of words in the whole dimension and width of the table are generalized. English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives all appear in dimension meaning, distance meaning and position sense. The spatial measurement adjectives in the two languages There are slight differences in the structure of the semantic system, and the number of adjectives in English space is slightly more than the number of Chinese spatial measurement adjectives. The concept and representation of distance, height, width and overall dimension in English are more detailed. Chinese has more detailed conceptions and representations for non prominence dimension and low, short meaning than English. The basic concepts in the class space measurement are universal, and the discrepancy in the concept of spatial measurement embodies the difference of semantic concepts on the combination level. (2) metonymy plays an important role in the expansion of the meaning of the adjective in spatial measurement. In English, the two cases of the metonymy in the metonymy of the Chinese space measure adjectives. The cognitive motivation of the classification of quantitative adjectives is an alternative relationship between the elements in the same cognitive domain. Their justification is a process of substitution between the inner part and the whole of the cognitive domain. In addition to the same metonymy category, the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives have the following commonalities in the metonymy process: some spatial measurement forms Adjectives have been used as other parts of speech or evolved from other parts of speech. Most of the spatial measure adjectives have the situation to nouns, adverbs, verbs and types of verbs, and there are some phenomena that turn to prepositions and pronouns. But the work of the English, Chinese space measure adjectives to describe relations and properties is their present typical usage. There are mostly informal, temporary and outdated features. Metonymy caused by metonymy mainly includes the generalization of dimension number and the transfer of two cases between position meaning and dimension meaning. English, Chinese space measure adjectives have high consistency in the sense of transfer, because English, Chinese users have the same meaning of space related. Image schema, such as the upper and lower image schema, the path image schema, the scale image schema, etc., the rotation and change of these image schemas cause the expansion of the spatial meaning of the English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives. There are some differences in the conversion of the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives: first, the "distant" does not take any kind of conversion, which is probably related to the others. Words expressing distance meaning can be freely used as adverbs and verbs, and vocabulary transfer should be restricted by other similar concepts. Second, in general, the transfer of adjectives in English space is more common. It can be used to describe the way of action, the length and degree of the Chinese space adjectives and the English space measure adjectives. For example, but the proportion of the Chinese spatial measurement adjectives is much lower than that of the adjectives in the English space. This is the result of the classification standard of the Chinese words. Therefore, the problem of the classification of words and the grammatical structure in the language should be considered. (3) the spatial measure adjectives in the Chinese language are in the scope and range. The domain, the degree domain, the evaluation domain, the comparative domain, the strength strength domain, the age domain, the time domain, the perception domain, the mental domain, the relation domain, the institutional domain, the economic domain mapping. The metaphor of the English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives is more common than the metonymy. These metaphorical meanings are far beyond the scope of the dictionary. The word to the whole dimension of the two languages is implicit. Metaphorical domain is the most mapping domain, which describes the metaphorical mapping domain of the spatial metric words that describe the prominent dimensions. The English of the same category space meaning, the Chinese spatial measure adjectives have a common preference in the metaphorical mapping. They are often conceptualized in a long distance and are highly commonly used to conceptualize the degree range. The area is often used for conceptual scope. Volume is commonly used to almost all of them. The meaning of adjectives in English and Chinese space has a stronger subjective color in the process of metaphorical mapping. There are differences in the detail of metaphorical mapping between the English and Chinese space measure adjectives. The two pairs of words describing the overall dimension in English show different mapping preferences, the English of the vertical dimension, the adjectives of the Chinese space measurement. There is a difference between time domain and age mapping. "Coarse, fine" is very different from other words in the process of metaphorical mapping. On the basis of a comparative study of English and Chinese spatial measure adjectives, this study draws the following conclusions: first, the comparative study of English and Chinese spatial measurement adjectives supports the proposition of the new Wolf hypothesis, that is, different languages. It is consistent with the semantic composition of the basic level. In English, Chinese users are composed of the concept of spatial measurement, highlighting the dimension cognition, the metonymy type and the main metaphorical mapping domain. Based on the common phylogenetic background and the same living environment, the Chinese speakers form a similar spatial image schema and the same living environment. Similar physical experience obtains the same basic level of concept. The universality of the metaphorical metaphor in English and Chinese space reflects the universality of metaphorical thinking in human cognition, reflecting the basic role of spatial cognition in the process of thinking abstraction. The universality of the basic concepts of cross language makes it possible for different language users to communicate. But thinking and communication depend on the concept of combination, so there are some differences between English and Chinese language users at the level of conceptual space, part of speech metonymy, and the details of constructing abstract concepts. The conceptualization of different cultures and language communities is universal and variable, and the natural language semantic system has both universality and nationality. The view of the different preferences of the adjective adjectives on the metaphorical mapping of Lakoff (1987) shows that if the basic concepts are different, then the extended meanings attached to the basic concepts are different. Although the core elements and the overall structure of the image schema are retained in the metaphorical mapping process, the metaphorical reflection is shown in the metaphorical projection. The special emotional polarity in the mappings of "coarse and fine" metaphor is only combined with diachronic and synchronic perspectives to discover the cognitive motivation of language forms and semantics. Second, the results of this study support the complementation of the language systems and examples proposed by Halliday (2008). In this study, many of the meanings of words in the text context are not included in the income dictionary, that is, these metaphorical mapping domains and meanings are far beyond the scope of the dictionary. Because the dictionary presents the system level of the lexical semantics, the corpus is the sum of the text, and all the words are used in the corpus. Examples are the realization of the potential of the language system. If they are not universally recognized or used for a long time, they will gradually disappear from the language. If they are repeatedly cured, it may gradually enter the dictionary, so the instantiation is the realization of the semantic system of the language vocabulary, the innovative use of the lexical semantic system, and the new use of the lexical semantic system. On the one hand, once these new meanings are firmly established, the lexical semantic system of the language will be enriched.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：H146.2;H314.2
，

本文編號(hào)：1785028