英汉篇章中作为衔接与连贯手段的隐喻、转喻认知机制对比研究

A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism as Devices of Cohesion and Coherence in English and Chinese Discourses

作者: 专业:外国语言学及应用语言学 导师:李志岭 年度:2010 学位:硕士  院校: 山东农业大学

Keywords

metaphorical cognitive mechanism, metonymical cognitive mechanism, cohesion and coherence, contrastive study

        随着认知语言学的发展,其研究范围已经从词汇、语法慢慢向语篇层面延伸。作为认知语言学研究中的重要分支,隐喻和转喻研究也受到研究者们的高度重视,而且研究者们对其在篇章衔接与连贯中的作用进行了逐渐增多的研究。然而,迄今为止,研究者们主要还是对隐喻和转喻表达式在篇章衔接与连贯中的作用进行了研究。实质上,隐喻和转喻认知机制在语言中非常普遍,作为一种重要的思维方式,对于篇章衔接与连贯也起到了非常重要的作用。本文基于概念隐喻理论和框架理论,选取《围城》中的第一章及其英文译本和Pride and Prejudice的前四章及其汉语译本作为语料,对英汉语篇中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行了对比研究。首先,通过分析《围城》中的第一章和Pride and Prejudice的前四章,对英汉篇章中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行了对比。其次,对这四个选取的语篇进行了交叉对比,对在翻译过程中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制变化进行总结:a.对《围城》中的第一章及其对应英语译文中的隐喻和转喻认知机制进行对比。b.对《围城》中的第一章及Pride and Prejudice前四章对应汉语译文中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行对比。c.对Pride and Prejudice前四章及其对应汉语译文中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行对比。d.对Pride and Prejudice前四章及《围城》第一章对应英语译文的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行对比。通过语料分析,我们发现:1)英汉篇章中都有相似的隐喻认知机制:数量象似性,临近象似性以及顺序象似性。隐喻认知机制是隐喻表达式背后的深层概念结构,是一种跨域映射。象似性是语言结构的形式与意义之间的映射,也是一种跨域映射。因此,象似性也是隐喻认知机制的一种体现。但是由于英汉民族的不同思维方式,其隐喻认知机制又有其不同点:汉语篇章更倾向于再现事件发生的自然时间顺序以及事物的真实空间顺序,而英语篇章则是一种突显顺序,倾向于将作者的观点等最重要的信息放在句首或是段首,而将原因、条件等次要信息放在句末或是段末。2)英汉篇章中相似的转喻认知机制表现为:照应,替代,省略。不同的转喻认知机制表现为:汉语篇章中更偏向于使用带有动词串的“无主句”和原词复现(重复),而英语篇章中则更偏向于使用动词省略和替代。在指示照应中,汉语语篇倾向于使用“这/这些”,而英语语篇中倾向于使用that/those,同时,定冠词是英语语篇中特有的。3)从翻译角度来看,通过对比发现:英语篇章中典型的隐喻认知机制在作为译文的英语篇章中表现得不是那么典型。英语篇章中经常省略谓语动词,而汉语篇章中经常使用原词复现;汉语篇章中经常省略主语,呈现一系列的“无主句”,而英语篇章中主语一般不能省略,而使用现在分词结构。本文共分七章:第一章为引言部分,介绍了研究背景,研究目的和本文的框架结构。第二章为文献综述,共分两部分。第一部分回顾了以往衔接与连贯研究以及各种衔接与连贯理论。第二部分回顾了隐喻与转喻表达的语篇功能。第三章为理论框架部分,介绍了概念隐喻理论与框架理论,并对隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制进行了定义。第四章为本文的关键部分,基于从《围城》和Pride and Prejudice中选取的语料,对英汉篇章中的隐喻认知机制进行了对比研究。第五章也是本文的关键部分,基于从《围城》和Pride and Prejudice中选取的语料,对英汉篇章中的转喻认知机制进行了对比研究。第六章,基于上述语料及其相应译文,对翻译中的隐喻认知机制和转喻认知机制变化进行了对比研究。第七章为结论部分,对本文的研究发现进行总结,并指出本文的研究不足以及对后续研究的启示。
    With the development of cognitive linguistics, its study scope has extended from words, grammar to discourse. The study of metaphor and metonymy has widely attracted scholars’attention. Many scholars have also studied the cohesive and coherent function of metaphor and metonymy. However, their studies are mainly focused on that of metaphorical and metonymical language. In fact, behind the metaphorical and metonymical language, there are metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms that function. These metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms are quite pervasive in language. As means of thinking modes, they play important roles in discourse cohesion and coherence.In this thesis, the author, based on conceptual metaphor theory and frame theory, makes a contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between four versions of discourse: the first chapter of《围城》by Qian Zhongshu, its English version Fortress Besieged by Jeanne Kelly &Nathan K. Mao, the first four chapters of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and its Chinese version by Wang Keyi.Firstly, the author makes a contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between the first chapter of《围城》by Qian Zhongshu and first four chapters of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.Secondly, the author makes a contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between different versions of discourse to see the changes in translation.a. A contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between first chapter of《围城》and its English version.b. A contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between first chapter of《围城》and first four chapters of Pride and Prejudice’s Chinese version.c. A contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between first four chapters of Pride and Prejudice and its Chinese version.d. A contrastive study of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms between first four chapters of Pride and Prejudice and first chapter of《围城》’s English version: Fortress Besieged.Through the analysis of linguistic data, the author finds the following results:1) There are similar metaphorical cognitive mechanisms in English and Chinese discourses: iconic sequencing, iconic proximity as well as the iconic quantity. Metaphorical cognitive mechanism is the conceptual structure behind the metaphorical expressions, it is the cross-domain mapping. Iconicity, the iconic mapping, is also one kind of cross-domain mapping. It is the mapping between the form of linguistic structure and meaning of that structure. Therefore, iconicity is one kind of metaphorical cognitive mechanism. However, Chinese people and western people have different thinking modes; therefore, there are some differences of metaphorical cognitive mechanism in these two languages: Chinese discourse tends to follow the chronological order and spatial sequence while English discourse usually follows sequence of prominence. That is, expressions in Chinese discourse usually follow the natural order or sequence of the events while those in English discourse tend to put what the discourse organizer wants most to express at the first place, usually the beginning of linguistic expression. These are the results of thinking modes’mapping onto linguistic expressions.2) There are similar metonymical cognitive mechanisms in English and Chinese discourses: reference, substitution and ellipsis. The differences between English and Chinese discourses in terms of metonymical cognitive mechanism include: Chinese discourse tend to use zero-subject sentence with verbal clusters and repetition of the original expression. English discourse is more inclined to use verbal ellipsis and substitution. Chinese discourse prefers the use of这/这些in demonstrative reference and English discourse prefers to use that/those. Besides, the definite article is unique in English discourses.3) In translation, the typical metaphorical cognitive mechanism in English discourse becomes less marked in English discourse as translated version. The metonymical cognitive mechanism of verbal ellipsis in English discourses is changed into repetition of the original expressions. And the metonymical cognitive mechanism of zero-subject sentence in Chinese discourse tends to be converted into short sentences with present participle structures.This thesis falls into seven chapters.Chapter One serves as an introduction, introducing the research background, the purpose and the organization of the thesis.Chapter Two is literature review which contains two sections. The first section presents a brief survey of the study of cohesion and coherence and various theories of cohesion and coherence. The second section provides studies of metaphorical and metonymical linguistic expressions’cohesive and coherent functions.Chapter Three provides the theoretical framework for the present study, introducing the definitions of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms, the conceptual metaphor theory and frame theory.Chapter Four, the key part of the whole thesis, makes a contrastive study of metaphorical cognitive mechanism as cohesive and coherent device in English and Chinese discourses based on the data from《围城》and Pride and Prejudice.Chapter Five, also the key part of the whole thesis, makes a contrastive study of metonymical cognitive mechanism as cohesive and coherent device in English and Chinese discourses based on the data from《围城》and Pride and Prejudice..Chapter Six, based on the above data and their corresponding translated versions, makes a contrastive study of different versions of discourses in terms of metaphorical and metonymical cognitive mechanisms.Chapter Seven acts as the conclusion, making a summary of the whole thesis and with the limitations of the present study and the suggestions for future study.
        

英汉篇章中作为衔接与连贯手段的隐喻、转喻认知机制对比研究

Abstract5-8
摘要9-15
List of tables15-17
Chapter 1 Introduction17-21
    1.1 Research Background17-19
    1.2 The Purpose and Significance of the Study19
    1.3 The Organization of the Thesis19-21
Chapter 2 Literature Review21-34
    2.1 A Brief Survey of the Study of Cohesion and Coherence21-23
    2.2 Various Theories of Discourse Cohesion and Coherence23-27
        2.2.1 Halliday & Hasan’s Register Plus Cohesion Theory23
        2.2.2 Van Dijk’s Macro Structure Theory23-24
        2.2.3 Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical Structure Theory24-25
        2.2.4 De Beaugrande and Dressler’s Seven Standards of Textuality25
        2.2.5 Brown and Yule’s Psychological Framework Theory25-26
        2.2.6 Givòn’s Mental Coherence Theory26-27
    2.3 The Study of Metaphor and Metonymy in Discourse Cohesion and Coherence .27-32
        2.3.1 The Study of Discoursal Iconicity27-28
        2.3.2 The Study of Nominalization in Discourse Cohesion and Coherence28-30
        2.3.3 The Study of Conceptual Metaphor in Discourse Cohesion and Coherence30-32
        2.3.4 The Study of Metonymy in Discourse Cohesion and Coherence32
    2.4 Summary32-34
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework34-43
    3.1 The Conceptual Metaphor Theory34-35
    3.2 The Understanding of Metonymy from Cognitive Perspective35-36
    3.3 Frame Theory36-38
    3.4 Summary38-43
Chapter 4 A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical Cognitive Mechanism In Englishe and Chinese Discourses43-54
    4.1 Similarities of Metaphorical Cognitive Mechanism in English and Chinese Discourses43-45
    4.2.Differences of Metaphorical Cognitive Mechanism in English and Chinese Discourses45-53
        4.2.1 Metaphorical Cognitive Mechanism of Chinese Discourses46-50
            4.2.1.1 The Chronological Order of Chinese Discourses46-48
            4.2.1.2 The Spatial Sequence of Chinese Discourses48-50
        4.2.2 Sequence of Prominence in English Discourses50-53
    4.3 Summary53-54
Chapter 5 A Contrastive Study of Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism In English and Chinese Discourses54-82
    5.1 The Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism Existing in Reference54-57
    5.2 The Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism Existing in Substitution57-62
    5.3 The Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism Existing in Ellipsis62-69
    5.4 Similarities in terms of Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism between English and Chinese Discourses69-71
    5.5 Differences in terms of Metonymical Cognitive Mechanism between English and Chinese Discourses71-80
        5.5.1 The Preference of that /those in English Discourses vs. The Preference of这些in Chinese Discourses71-73
        5.5.2 The Definite Article the in English Discourses vs. Repetition in Chinese Discourses73-76
        5.5.3 Zero-subject Sentences in Chinese Discourses vs. Verbal Ellipsis in English Discourses76-80
    5.6 Summary80-82
Chapter 6 Similarities and Differences between Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanisms in Chinese and English Texts82-100
    6.1 A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanisms in《围城》and Its Corresponding English Version82-87
    6.2 A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanisms in《围城》and Pride and Prejudice’s Chinese Version87-91
    6.3 A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanisms inPride and Prejudice and Its Chinese Version91-96
    6.4 A Contrastive Study of Metaphorical and Metonymical Cognitive Mechanisms inPride and Prejudice and 《围城》’s English Version96-98
    6.5 Summary98-100
Chapter 7 Conclusion100-104
    7.1 Findings100-103
    7.2 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Study103-104
Bibliography104-109
Acknowledgements109-110
Articles Published during the Three Years of Schooling110
        下载全文需10


本文地址:

上一篇:图式理论视角下的连贯研究及对读前教学的启示
下一篇:大学英语师生词汇学习策略教授与使用的相关性研究

分享到: 分享英汉篇章中作为衔接与连贯手段的隐喻、转喻认知机制对比研究到腾讯微博           收藏
评论排行
公告