隐喻化中的源语概念影响 ——基于语料库的中国英语学习者隐喻表达研究

论文摘要

本文尝试从英语和汉语的角度探讨隐喻的认知理论,从而确认英语和汉语间隐喻化的异同会导致中国英语学习者隐喻义习得过程中发生源语的概念影响。从认知角度探究隐喻主要来源于客观世界与语言之间存在中间层面“概念化”的设想。本文由此提出隐喻化这一概念。隐喻化是一种多层动态的概念机制,它概括了我们认识世界的经验,并同时成为隐喻语言的基础。诚然,隐喻化在不同文化中具有普遍性和相对性。总体来说,隐喻化差异表现为隐喻语言表达的差异。当把隐喻化的语际对应问题运用到二语习得中,我们发现学习者在使用二语隐喻语言时背后的概念影响。因此我们建立了源语概念影响这一框架,旨在从认知方面阐述迁移现象。此次研究着重探讨中国英语学习者在学习英语词汇的隐喻意义过程中受到的源语概念影响。基于德尔文与瓦斯蒲(Dirven&Verspoor)提出的概念化的三个过程,我们归纳了隐喻化中涉及的三个主要概念机制,即图式化,分类,和互动,并建立了隐喻义形成的潜在认知模型。在此模型中,意象图式、隐喻映射、及其不同程度的典型性被系统地结构化,从而形成一个层级网络。在本文对三个具体概念的词义分析中,会就图式、映射和典型性这些变量进行详细研究。为了揭示词义层面上隐喻化的源语概念影响,隐喻化的汉英对比分析是必不可少的。此次研究采用了莱考夫(George Lakoff)对概念隐喻的分类方法,分别对汉英结构隐喻化、方位隐喻化和本体隐喻化进行了比较研究。首先我们进行了宏观对比分析,对汉英隐喻化的对应情况提供总体的描述。所有隐喻数据来源于勃克莱隐喻数据库。经过分析我们得出结论,结构隐喻化比方位隐喻化和本体隐喻化表现出更明显的语际差异。在研究三种隐喻过程中我们发现概念RED、UP和OUT最具代表性。由此,我们对RED、UP、OUT三个概念进行了基于词典和语料库的微观对比分析,从而了解个案的语际隐喻化异同。此次研究中所用的词典为考林斯英语词典(1996)和汉语大词典(2004),所用语料库为Wordbank和现代汉语语料库。研究发现,在语言层面上,概念RED的隐喻用法在汉语中比在英语中更加广泛,而概念UP和OUT却与之相反。对这三个概念潜在的图式、映射和典型性等变量的进一步研究证实了这些语言层面的差异归咎于其深层的概念差异。在探知了汉英间概念差异的基础上,我们分别就RED、UP和OUT三个概念继续进行了基于语料库的中介语对比分析和错误分析,从而证明汉语隐喻化对中国英语学习者隐喻表达的源语概念影响。英语本民族语学生语料库包含LOCNESS语料库中美国学生所写的英语作文。中国学习者语料库包含复旦大学不同英语水平的269位学生的英语作文。研究发现,与英语本民族语学生相比,中国学习者在英语隐喻用法中确实受到源语的概念影响,具体表现为:输出不足,输出过度,和表达错误。这些表现有其概念根源,即由图式、映射和典型性体现出的语际隐喻化差异。在汉英共有的图式和映射类别中学习者使用的隐喻用法更多,并且他们使用这些隐喻的方式与汉语的典型性序列更加吻合,这些都证明了源语概念影响的存在。在错误的隐喻表达中,源语概念影响依然明显,因为有超过一半的错误是由源语导致的,并且这些错误的数量与汉语的典型性序列之间具有重要的数据关联性。从对三个概念之间的比较分析来看,结构隐喻化中体现的源语概念影响更加明显。我们研究还发现,源语概念影响与英语熟练程度呈反比,但两种熟练程度人群间的差异并没有达到数据上的显著性。鉴于此,我们假设性地提出了初级英语学习者和高级英语学习者的隐喻化模式。在理论上,本研究属于“应用认知语言学”范畴,旨在把认知语言学中的概念隐喻理论与应用语言学中的二语习得结合起来,从隐喻化角度探索隐喻语言学习中的源语迁移现象;在实践上,本研究具有一定的教育意义:在强调交流能力和语言流利的同时,我们还要重视提高英语学习者的隐喻能力和概念流利,或者说,在二语习得申我们应该增强源语概念影响这一意识。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• 摘要
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Abbreviations
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1 Research Background
• 1.2 Purpose of the Study
• 1.3 Significance of the Study
• 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation
• Chapter Two Metaphorization across Languages
• 2.1 The Modern View:Conceptual Metaphor Theory
• 2.1.1 Nature of Conceptual Metaphor
• 2.1.2 Conceptual Metaphor System
• 2.1.3 The Philosophical Background:Experientialism
• 2.1.4 Three Types of Conceptual Metaphor
• 2.2 Image Schema Underlying Conceptual Metaphor
• 2.2.1 Definition and Properties of Image Schema
• 2.2.2 Diagram or Image:Representation of Image Schema
• 2.2.3 The Invariance Principle:Image Schema in Metaphor
• 2.3 Metaphorization
• 2.3.1 Definition of Metaphorization
• 2.3.2 Conceptualization and Language
• 2.3.3 Metaphorization and Metaphorical language
• 2.3.4 Three Mechanisms of Metaphorization
• 2.4 Cross-linguistic Metaphorization
• 2.4.1 Universalism and Relativism of Human Conceptualization
• 2.4.2 Necessity of Cross-linguistic Metaphorization Study
• 2.4.3 Metaphor Studies in China and Importance of Present Research
• Chapter Three SL Coneeptual Influence in Metaphorization
• 3.1 Definition of Language Transfer
• 3.2 A Historical Overview of Language Transfer Studies
• 3.2.1 The Behaviorist Approach
• 3.2.2 The Mentalist Approach
• 3.2.3 The Current Trend:the Cognitive Approach
• 3.3 A New Term:SL Conceptual Influence
• 3.3.1 Need of A New Framework
• 3.3.2 Terminology of SL Conceptual Influence
• 3.3.3 Linguistic Manifestations of SL Conceptual Influence
• 3.4 Theoretical Support for SL Conceptual Influence
• 3.4.1 Psychological Basis
• 3.4.2 Thinking for Speaking Theory
• 3.4.3 Compound Conceptual System Theory
• 3.4.4 Conceptual Fluency Theory
• 3.5 SCI in Metaphorization at Lexicosemantic Level
• 3.5.1 SCI at Lexicosemantic Level
• 3.5.2 SCI in Metaphorization on Learning TL Metaphorical Senses
• 3.5.3 Reality of SCI in Metaphorization at Lexicosemantic Level
• 3.6 A Cognitive Model in Lexicosemantic Analysis
• 3.6.1 The Theoretical Framework of Cognitive Semantics
• 3.6.2 Three Conceptual Mechanisms in Meaning Formation
• 3.6.2.1 Image schemata in lexical semantic analysis
• 3.6.2.2 Metaphorical mappings in lexical semantic analysis
• 3.6.2.3 Prototypicality in lexical semantic analysis
• 3.6.3 Summery:A Hierarchical Model
• Chapter Four Research Design
• 4.1 Methodology Ⅰ:An E-C Comparative Study of Metaphorization
• 4.1.1 A Macro-perspective Contrastive Analysis
• 4.1.1.1 Data collection
• 4.1.1.2 Data analysis
• 4.1.2 A Micro-perspective Contrastive Analysis
• 4.1.2.1 Justification of the case study of RED,UP and OUT
• 4.1.2.2 RED,UP and OUT vs.red,up and out
• 4.1.2.3 Data collection:the dictionary-based and corpus-based approach
• 4.1.2.4 Data analysis:categorization and statistics
• 4.2 Methodology Ⅱ:An Empirical Study of SCI of Metaphorization
• 4.2.1 Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis
• 4.2.1.1 Rationale of Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis
• 4.2.1.2 Data collection:native-student corpus and learner corpus
• 4.2.1.3 Data analysis:three steps
• 4.2.2 Error Analysis
• 4.2.2.1 Rationale of error analysis
• 4.2.2.2 Data collection:sample collection and identification of errors
• 4.2.2.3 Data analysis:description and explanation of errors
• Chapter Five An E-C Comparative Study of Metaphorization
• 5.1 The Macro-perspective Contrastive Analysis
• 5.1.1 Structural Metaphorizatien
• 5.1.2 Orientational Metaphorization
• 5.1.3 Ontological Metaphorization
• 5.2 The Micro-perspective Contrastive Analysis
• 5.2.1 The RED Metaphorization
• 5.2.1.1 The metaphorical senses of "red" in English and "hong" in Chinese
• 5.2.1.2 The RED schemata and their prototypicality in English and Chinese
• 5.2.1.3 The RED mappings and their prototypicality in English and Chinese
• 5.2.2 The UP Metaphorization
• 5.2.2.1 The metaphorical senses of "up" in English and "shang" & "qi" in Chinese
• 5.2.2.2 The UP schemata and their prototypicality in English and Chinese
• 5.2.2.3 The UP mappings and their prototypicality in English and Chinese
• 5.2.3 The OUT Metaphorization
• 5.2.3.1 The metaphorical senses of "out" in English and "chu" & "wai" in Chinese
• 5.2.3.2 The OUT schemata and their prototypicality in English and Chinese
• 5.2.3.3 The OUT mappings and their prototypieality in English and Chinese
• 5.3 Summery
• Chapter Six An Empirical Study of SCI in Metaphorization
• 6.1 A Corpus-based Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis
• 6.1.1 Metaphorical Uses in the Corpora
• 6.1.2 SCI in Metaphorization of the Concept RED
• 6.1.2.1 The influence of E-C congruence in RED schemata and mappings
• 6.1.2.2 The influence of E-C prototypicality in RED schemata and mappings
• 6.1.3 SCI in Metaphorization of the Concept UP
• 6.1.3.1 The influence of E-C congruence in UP schemata and mappings
• 6.1.3.2 The influence of E-C prototypicality in UP schemata and mappings
• 6.1.4 SCI in Metaphorization of the Concept OUT
• 6.1.4.1 The influence of E-C congruence in OUT schemata and mappings
• 6.1.4.2 The influence of E-C prototypicality in OUT schemata and mappings
• 6.1.5 A General Discussion
• 6.2 Error Analysis
• 6.2.1 Description of Errors
• 6.2.2 Classification of Errors
• 6.2.3 Explanation of Errors
• 6.2.4 SCI and L1-induced Errors
• 6.2.4.1 The influence of Chinese mappings and protorypicality on RED errors
• 6.2.4.2 The influence of Chinese mappings and prototypicality on UP errors
• 6.2.4.3 The influence of Chinese mappings and prototypieality on OUT errors
• 6.2.5 A General Discussion
• Chapter Seven Conclusions and Implications
• 7.1 Conclusions
• 7.1.1 Research Question 1
• 7.1.1 Research Question 2
• 7.2 Implications
• 7.2.1 Theoretioal Implications
• 7.2.2 Pedagogical Implioations
• 7.3 Limitations
• References
• Appendices