【作者】 徐伟；

【导师】 廖美珍；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 在以往的隐喻研究中,学者们将重点放在隐喻及其意义的解读过程上,其结果就是忽视了隐喻使用者在隐喻及其意义的认知构建过程中的主导和主体作用。Charteris-Black(2004:247)指出,以修辞性语言为对象的大多数研究主要着眼于修辞性语言的理解而忽视了产生修辞性语言的各种因素。这一番话的确值得我们深思,而且纵观目前的隐喻认知研究,我们不难发现,学界对隐喻使用者这一认知主体不够重视。Lakoff&Johnson(1980)、Lakoff(1987)和Lakoff&Turner(1989)主要致力于隐喻的认知本质、隐喻的心理现实、隐喻的力量、隐喻的系统性、隐喻在人认识客观世界中的作用和人解读隐喻的方式等方面的探索。Fauconnier(1985,1997)和Fauconnier&Turner(2002)尽管潜心于隐喻及其意义的心理空间的认知构建、映射和合成,却似乎更侧重于隐喻及其意义的认知解读机制及认知生成的制约因素作用。Goatly(1997)以功能语言学和关联理论为视角究考了人类借用隐喻来传送意义的方式,同时也检视了隐喻在实际交际情景中的作用,但以上理论都没有论及隐喻构建者在隐喻使用和创造过程中的举足轻重作用。Gibbs(2008:37-38)态度鲜明地提出,时下隐喻理论的一个重要问题在于,许多研究者未能对隐喻过程(processes of metaphor)和隐喻产物(products of metaphor)做出明确的区别,哲学家、语言学家和文学理论家将隐喻产物看作隐喻的理解,并把主要注意力集中到隐喻产物上,然后尽力根据隐喻产物推导隐喻理解的过程。我们的研究主要是立足与为什么使用者会选择一个而不是另外的隐喻。本文采用的理论框架为Charteris-Black的批评隐喻学来研究美国总统奥巴马就职演说中隐喻的劝导功能。本文提出隐喻分析从使用者的角度出发,要综合个人主体和社会资源角度进行多角度分析。个人方面,应从认知语义,个人的社会语境知识背景来分析如何理解和阐释隐喻;社会角度应通过分析隐喻背后潜在的意识形态性和社会文化历史因素,揭示为什么说话者为什么选择特定的隐喻来实现交际目的。本文通过对奥巴马的就职演说的分析,认为隐喻表达具有可以框定和影响人们的价值判断的评价功能,使用隐喻可以激发情感具有号召功能以及道德评价的功能,同时也表达了不同的意识形态。隐喻这种言语行为可以揭示话语群体的信仰,态度和感情,最终使隐喻在演讲语篇中起到劝导的功能。目前批评隐喻学分析的重点是隐喻用与激发情感和影响价值判断的语篇,因此本文重点考察了演讲语篇的隐喻使用。隐喻的使用,有如语言的其他方面是为了在特定的交际场景为了达到特定的交际目的,所以隐喻理论要融合语用学的视角考虑使用目的和使用的具体语境,具体而言隐喻在演讲中的修辞作用是劝说听众接受观点,讲话者隐含的语意是理解隐喻本质的基础。隐喻特殊的作用是使我们可以以创造性的方式交流。使用隐喻可以避免直接表达命题,讲话者诱使听者参与阐释行为,因而隐喻具有阐释的特殊作用,并通过劝说这种修辞行为把阐释和情感激发联系到一起,听众如果可以通过隐喻理解讲话者的意图就可以成功阐释,这正是隐喻重视的语用特征。同时隐喻可以揭示话语群体的信仰,态度和感情,更重要的是隐喻用于劝导且具有激起情感的潜势,可以说隐喻是一种言语行为,具有劝说功能。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the previous studies, scholars emphasize more of their attention on the interpretations of metaphors and their implied meanings. Consequently, they ignore a very important element of metaphors, which is the leading and primary role that metaphor users play in metaphor construction. Charteris-Black(2004:247)points out that studies on rhetorical language primarily focus on the understanding of rhetorical utterances and ignore elements that how rhetorical utterances are produced. This argument is quite thought provoking and we share the same point view that the study on metaphor users and meaning construction from encoding perspective has not drawn enough attention. Scholars like Lakoff and Johnson dedicate their efforts to the cognitive essence, the universality, Systematicity and the cultural coherence of metaphors. Fauconnier(1985) made contributions to the cognitive mapping aspects and mental space theory. Goatly (1997) conducted research on how metaphor can be used to convey meanings and its roles in the daily communications based on functional grammar and the relevance theory. However, little is done on the research of the metaphor constructors’ roles on metaphor selection, use and creating process. Gibbs (2008: 37-38) came up with the thought that researches have not made clear distinctions between the process of metaphor and products of metaphors and most of the researches are on the interpretations of metaphor products. This leads to an important question: why do we choose one particular conceptual metaphor instead of another one?This article takes the Critical Metaphor Analysis as the main framework. Since the main focus of CMA is the texts in which metaphors are employed to motivate, inspire and influence people’s values and feelings, we select the latest Obama’s presidential inaugural address as the data and we propose that metaphor analysis should begin with metaphor construction and metaphor process analysis. We should use a multidimensional approach of combining individual factors and social factors. Individual resources can be sub-divided into three components: our thoughts, feelings and bodily experiences of the world; our understanding of what will be effective in particular contexts of use; and our knowledge of the linguistic system and of lexical fields and the various word senses that are available. The social bases for metaphor choice are ideological outlook, primarily political or religious viewpoint and historical and cultural knowledge. Traditional approaches to metaphor exclusively concentrated on linguistic considerations while cognitive linguistic approaches exclusively concentrate on the individual experiential basis of metaphor. The individual factors and social factors will be analyzed to reveal why speakers choose particular metaphors to realize communication purposes. We also argue that from recent study by Robin&Mayer metaphorical expressions have framing functions and distancing effects. Employing metaphors in the presidential inaugural address can inspire and persuade audiences since in politics, influencing people’s judgments is a central goal. So the persuasive effect of metaphors in the discourse of social domains may be explained with reference to social resources in addition to individual ones.更多还原