【作者】 周福娟；

【导师】 汪榕培；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 虽然转喻研究的历史悠久,但其受重视的程度目前还远远不够。近年来,转喻研究逐渐引起了人们的重视,研究的范围和深度也随之扩大和加深。指称转喻是转喻的一个分支,用以区分述谓转喻和言外转喻。指称转喻在语言中表现形式为词汇中的名词,人们长期以来研究的转喻绝大部分都是指称转喻。指称转喻不仅是认知语义学研究的重点,也是词汇语义研究的重要部分,是词汇意义变化的一种主要途径。一些中外词汇学家或语言学家编撰的词汇学或语言学研究专著都会专辟章节讨论指称转喻在词汇意义变化方面所起的作用(汪榕培,卢晓娟,1997;汪榕培,2002;汪榕培,王之江,吴晓维,2005;王希杰,2004;Taylor,1995;Behrens & Zaefferer,2002;Croft & Cruse,2004等)。从他们的著作中可以看出,人们对指称转喻在词汇意义变化中的作用研究逐步深化,逐渐从侧重讨论指称转喻在词汇修辞方面的修辞作用过渡到研究指称转喻在词汇意义变化中的认知作用。本论文借鉴了目前对转喻的划分,以指称转喻为研究对象,从认知图式角度探讨了指称转喻在词汇语义变化方面的作用,并对其相应的功能以及其研究的启示进行了探究。本论文首先从修辞学、结构主义语义学、认知语义学三方面对指称转喻的相关研究成果进行了梳理,从不同视角对指称转喻研究的共同点都是努力探究其在词汇意义表达、信息传递方面的作用,只不过侧重点不同而已。修辞学和认知语义学对指称转喻的研究与词汇学对词汇的修辞研究和词汇语义研究在很多地方有重合之处,指称转喻也是词汇语义研究和词汇修辞研究的一部分。目前,人们已经认识到,仅从修辞学或结构语义学角度讨论指称转喻在词汇修辞效果和词汇意义变化方面的作用已经远不能适应当今词汇语义发展和研究的需求。指称转喻已不再被简单地看作是词之间的替代关系,而是一种映射关系,其本质上是概念性的(Lakoff & Johnson,1980; K?vecses,2002; Panther & Thornburg,2003等)。实际上,认知语言学和认知语言学家在一定程度上也应该被称为认知词汇学和认知词汇学家。认知语言学讨论的语言与现实之间的关系最后基本上也是侧重于或归结于讨论词汇和现实之间的关系。他们的研究和相关成果在很大部分上都是以词汇研究为开端并且主要以词汇为语料的(如原型理论的研究、范畴化的研究、隐喻的研究等),句子和文本研究往往是他们在词汇研究的基础上进行的拓展。指称转喻的研究也是如此,词汇研究仍是指称转喻理论研究的基础,转喻词语在很大程度上既是转喻理论研究成果的来源,也是转喻思维在语言中的体现。词汇语义研究一直是词汇学研究的重点,指称转喻是词汇语义变化的一种认知途径(Croft & Cruse, 2004),指称转喻的深入研究对于我们认识和了解词汇语义的变化发展有着重要的帮助。虽然词汇语义会受各种不同因素的影响发生变化,但都在一定程度上折射出认知主体(人)对现实世界的认识和理解。因此,了解和掌握认知主体对词汇语义变化的认知途径对于21世纪词汇学的发展和研究尤其必要和重要。根据唯物主义认识论,事物万变不离其宗,我们只有在抓住事物(词汇语义)变化的实质或关键,才能发现事物(词汇语义)变化和发展的规律,并且以不变应万变。指称转喻在词汇意义变化中的作用虽然一直未被忽视,但也未能引起足够的重视。20世纪末以来,人们逐渐认识到转喻和隐喻一样植根于人们的生活体验,建构着人们的思维和生活方式(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Radden & K?vecses, 1999;束定芳,2000等)。目前,国内外学者对指称转喻的描述呈现出众说纷纭、术语层出不穷的局面,有时还会出现同一学者在不同书籍中使用不同术语或在同一书籍中通用不同术语的情况,这往往会使人们在学习研究的过程中混淆对指称转喻的认识和了解。本论文借鉴了认知图式的研究成果,同时引入心理学对图式的相关理论研究,对指称转喻的认知过程、指称转喻的理解以及指称转喻与文本中认知图式的关系进行了探讨,并结合英汉语诗歌文本中指称转喻的体现形式——转喻词语——进行了分析。指称转喻,作为一种概念转喻,其认知过程和理解过程是一致的。指称转喻的理解除受认知主体的个人图式、社会图式和文化图式的影响和制约外,还受文本中语言图式(词汇图式)、文本图式的影响和制约。很多情况下,指称转喻的理解是认知主体结合认知图式进行语用推理、动态识解的过程。换言之,认知主体只有在综合考虑这些认知图式因素的前提下,才能把握住指称转喻在语言中的体现形式——转喻词语——反映出的世界图式。在此分析的基础上,本论文最后结合认知图式对指称转喻的概念化功能、推理功能、修辞功能和社会功能进行了系统的探究,最后探讨了本研究对词汇教学、词典编撰的启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 Although metonymy has been studied for a very long time, it has not been attached much importance to until recent years. Nowadays, the study of metonymy has been broadened and furthered. Referential metonymy is a sub-branch of metonymy (The other two are predicational metonymy and illocutionary metonymy), and it is what people have long been studying. The realization of referential metonymy in language is nouns in lexicon. Referential metonymy is the focus of cognitive semantics and lexical semantics as a main way of semantic change in lexicon. The role of referential metonymy has definitely been discussed in works on linguistics or lexicology by linguists and lexicologists at home and abroad. (Wang Rongpei, Lu Xiaojuan, 1997; Wang Rongpei, 2002; Wang Rongpei, Wang Zhijiang, Wu Xiaowei, 2005; Wang Xijie, 2004; Taylor, 1995;Behrens & Zaefferer,2002;Croft & Cruse,2004; etc.) In their view, scholars are shifting their studies from the rhetorical function to the cognitive function in lexical semantic change. The dissertation agrees to the classification of metonymy carried out by Panther & Thornburg (1999), and with referential metonymy as the object of investigation it attempts to explore the roles of referential metonymy in lexical semantic change and its corresponding functions from the perspective of cognitive schema.A relevant survey of the studies on referential metonymy shows that the studies from the rhetorical, structuralist and cognitive perspectives have something in common, that is, focusing on the part of referential metonymy in delivering meaning and transmitting information. There appear to be some overlaps in the studies of referential metonymy in the field of rhetoric and cognitive semantics, the rhetorical study of vocabulary and the lexical semantic study in lexicology. In other words, the study of referential metonymy is part of lexical semantic and rhetorical study of vocabulary. It is obvious that to study referential metonymy merely from the perspective of structural rhetoric or semantics is not enough to meet the demands of the development of lexical semantics. Referential metonymy is not simply considered as a stand-for relationship between words any longer, but as a mapping relationship. It is conceptual in nature.(Lakoff & Johnson,1980; K?vecses,2002; Panther & Thornburg,2003; etc.)As a matter of fact, cognitive linguistics should be considered to be cognitive lexicology and cognitive linguists cognitive lexicologists to a certain extent. The relationship between language and reality studied in cognitive linguistics ultimately comes down to investigating the relationship between words and reality. Studies (for example, prototype theory, categorization, metaphor) carried on by cognitive linguists and their corresponding results mostly begin with the study of words, and words act as the main data in their research. The data of sentences and texts are only the extension of studies based on words, and so does the study of referential metonymy. Metonymic expressions, to some extent, not only engender the research results of referential metonymy but also embody our metonymic way of thinking. Lexical semantics has always triggered the attention of scholars in the field of lexicography, referential metonymy is a cognitive approach in lexical semantic change(Croft & Cruse, 2004),and its further study will be of great importance and necessity to our understanding of lexical semantic change and development. In spite of the fact that lexical semantics has been and will be under the influence of various factors, all the factors reflect how the cognitive subjects cognize and understand the world around them. Therefore, knowledge of the cognitive approach of the cognitive subjects to lexical semantic change will be of extreme necessity and significance for the development of lexicology in the 21st century. In terms of materialistic epistemology, though things change time and again, they stay much the same. As long as we have in hand the key to changes in things (lexical semantics), we will definitely find their laws or principles, and cope with them by sticking to a fixed principle.The role of referential metonymy in lexical semantic change having not been completely ignored, it has not attracted much attention. Since the end of the 20th century, we have gradually come to realize that metonymy, like metaphor, is grounded in our bodily experience and constructs the way we think and live.(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Radden & K?vecses, 1999; Shu Dingfang,2000; etc.)Currently, the different perspectives in which referential metonymy is positioned have created a discordance among scholars with regard to the notion of referential metonymy. Some tend to apply various terms in their books to describe referential metonymy, while others even prefer to use different terms in the same book. In virtue of the vagueness of the previous description, referential metonymy has caused much confusion in itself.With reference to the research concerning cognitive schema together with some pertinent schema theories from the psychological angle, and on the basis of some metonymic expressions in English and Chinese poetry as textual data, the dissertation tries to figure out the cognitive process of referential metonymy as well as the relationship between referential metonymy and schemata in texts. The understanding process of referential metonymy, as a type of conceptual metonymy, is consistent with its cognitive process. Apart from the impacts of personal schema, social schema and cultural schema possessed by the cognitive subject, the understanding process of referential metonymy is also influenced and conditioned by language schema (word schema) and text schema. In most cases, the understanding process of referential metonymy is one that requires the cognitive subject to pragmatically infer and dynamically construe in connection with some cognitive schemata. In other words, only on the condition that the cognitive subject takes into consideration all the cognitive schemata, are they capable of having a full understanding of the world schema reflected by metonymic expressions, the realization of referential metonymy in language. On the ground of the above analysis, the dissertation makes a detailed survey of the conceptualizing, inferencing, rhetorical and social power of referential metonymy. Last but not the least, the implications of the research of referential metonymy are discussed in the last part of the dissertation, which is of vital significance not only for the lexical instruction but for dictionary compilation.更多还原