【作者】 冯源；

【导师】 曹玲娟；

【作者基本信息】 海南大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2013， 硕士

【副题名】以动词inject，spray和cram为例

【摘要】 本文主要讨论了动词隐喻用法与论元构式的互动机制。针对Marantz (1984)提出的英语动词隐喻与非隐喻用法中论元结构相同的理论假设,本研究作出如下理论假设：动词的隐喻和非隐喻用法受论元结构的约束,而且论元构式有时是不同的。以往的相关研究发现,在不同的语法层面,比如词性、搭配、句法等方面,动词的隐喻用法和非隐喻用法都呈现出差异性,那么这种差异在构式层面上还会不会存在呢?针对这一总括性话题,本研究主要回答以下三个分支问题：(1)隐喻与非隐喻用法中构式的差别是什么?(2)隐喻与构式互动的认知过程是怎样的?(3)为什么同一个动词在非隐喻和隐喻用法中的构式有时会不同?定量分析加答第一问题。定量研究选用三个动词(inject, spray, cram)作为本研究的样本词汇。第一步,从当代美国英语语料库中(COCA)提取语料数据,并对每个样本单词的词条数据进行隐喻鉴定,统计出隐喻与非隐喻用的频度。隐喻鉴定研究分析分两步,一是依据Cameron提出的两个必要条件进行隐喻效度鉴定；二是依据Steen提的MIPVU隐喻鉴定程序进行隐喻信度鉴定。第二步,对数据进行构式分类并统计出频度分析。第三步,采用SPSSv.18.0统计软件测量分析出隐喻和构式频度分析2×5交叉表中的变量相关度,即Pearson卡方统计数据：(inject:0.554; spray:0.216; cram:0.184)。定量分析得出结论：(1)动词隐喻与非隐喻用法的构式不是同一的,各个动词隐喻用法中构式与非隐喻用法中的构式可能不同或相同。例如,动词cram选用的构式在隐喻与非隐喻中相同,动词spray和inject在两种用法中构式完全不同。(2)三个动词在英语用法中均选择致使-移动构式。(3)三种动词的题元结构变化方式分别是：重塑,替换和复制。定性分析解释第二、第三个问题。定性研究采用自省分析方式深入探究动词隐喻与非隐喻用法中构式差异产生的过程,在Levelt(2008)的话语产出框架下采用构式理论分析了动词隐喻和非隐喻用法的构式变化机制和过程,详细解析了动词非隐喻和隐喻用法从概念到句结构形成的认知过程三种变化机制。被研究的三个动词在隐喻用法中出现频次最高的构式均足致使-移动构式(动词的事件框架)。动词inject题元角色重塑实质上是指非隐喻用法中出现频次最高的构式相对动词的事件框架而言题元栅减少了,而隐喻用法中致使一移动构式(动词的事件框架)出现频次最高。动词spray经历题元角色替换实质是两种用法中构式的题元角色和题元栅结构发生了变化,隐喻用法中致使-动构式(动词的事件框架)在两种频次最高,而在非隐喻用法中致使构式出现频率最大。动词cram在两种用法中的构式没有发生变化,即题元角色从非隐喻用法被“复制”到隐喻用法中。本研究进一推理出导致动词非隐喻和隐喻用法中构式不同的原因。首先,三个动词的隐喻用法均偏好致使-移动构式是因为隐喻整合过程中的“同一性”关系要求动词隐喻的事件概念结构必须是原型成员,而致使-动构式是致使构式的原型构式。在隐喻合成过程中,人的心智先选择心理空间1源域)和心理空间2(目标域)之间基本的跨空间关系---“同一性”关系。对于这三个动词来说,其同一性关系与动词本身动态力关系中的“方式关系”一致。其次,三个动词的构式在非隐喻用法中各不¨相同。在注意力视窗开启过程中,说话人与听话人共享的、默认的事件题元角色可以被省去。这种语用“要求”是通过动词本身对构式融合的作用得到满足的。动圳inject本身含有路径指示成分,论元介词短语中的into作为惯用介词(idiomatic preposition)办是目标题元的先行词。在药品注射或毒品注射这样的常规语境下,目标题元也随之“不凸显”。动词spray在非隐喻用法中突出结果事件,动词本身含有工具,因此工具题元角色作为重复信息被排列到其他两个题元之后。动词cram和以上两个动词都不相同,构式在非隐喻和隐喻用法中是相同的,这是因为动词本身强调容器题元的限度,即本身意味着将某种容器塞满。更多还原

【Abstract】 The present study probes into the interaction between metaphors and constructions in terms of verbs by means of three cases of inject, spray and cram. Marantz believes that the internal argument of a verb remains unchanged in metaphorical use compared with that in non-metaphorical use (1984), but the present study will argue that argument constructions (Goldberg,1995) in metaphorical and literal uses behave differently and that metaphorical extension witnesses some structural changes as well as the iniluence of argument roles of a construction. The previous research has found that the formal differences in the uses occur at the levels of part of speech, collocation and syntactic structure, but the present study will investigate the differences or similarities of verbs at the level of construction grammar. Consequently, three sub-questions will be answered in the thesis:(a) what are the differences of constructions between metaphorical and non-metaphorical uses?(b) what is the cognitive process of this linguistic phenomenon?(c) why does such a linguistic phenomenon exist in terms of cognitive linguistics?To discuss the first issue, the quantitative analysis method will be employed to research the corpora of three verbs selected from the COCA. First, the metaphor identification will be made so as to find the frequency distribution of non-metaphorical and metaphorical uses. The metaphor identification will follow the MIPVU procedure in order to make sure of the reliability of identification and will conform with two necessary conditions for identification validity. Second, the frequency distributions of constructions in two uses are examined. Third, the tool of SPSSv18.0is utilized to measure the correlation between constructions and metaphors, and statistical result is2*5cross-tabulation with Pearson’s Chi-Square value and Cramer’s Value (inject:0.554; spray:0.216; cram:0.184). The result of quantitative analysis demonstrates that (1) the constructions in metaphorical uses are different from those in non-metaphorical uses in terms of inject and spray;(2) metaphors prefer caused-motion construction;(3) metaphorical uses are marked by construction restructuring which is related to three modes:restoration, substitution and imitation.The results of qualitative analysis provide the answers to the second and third questions. The introspective method is employed to research the cognitive process of the constructional changes in the theoretical framework of Levelt’s speech production blueprint (2008). The present study elaborates the process of speech production---from conceptual structuring to constructional fusion, and the finding shows that the caused-motion construction (same as verb’s frame semantics) takes the highest frequency in metaphorical uses of three verbs. Restoration of thematic roles refers to the fact that some thematic role occurs in metaphorical use compared with the missing of the same role in non-metaphorical uses and that the argument number would increase. In the process of substitution, the number of thematic roles may remain unchanged and one of them would be replaced in the same place with another different role. Imitation means some thematic role grid would be imitated from non-metaphorical use to metaphorical use.The present study further infers the reason why the constructions would change or not change in metaphorical and non-metaphorical uses. Metaphorical uses of all these verbs prefer caused-motion construction to the others in that caused-motion construction is prototypical in the idealized cognitive model of causative event and the vital relation of identity in metaphorical blending requires a prototype of causative event in terms of the three verbs in the study. The basic and vital relation of identity in metaphorical blending is consistent with the means of dynamic-force relation of these selected verbs. Different constructions occur in non-metaphorical use in terms of each individual verb because of the pragmatic requirement which would be met by the properties of verbs themselves. The verb inject denotes the motion path by its prefix "in’, and the preposition "into" in the Prepositional Phrase which plays the Goal role is an idiomatic preposition. In conventional context of medicine use or drug-taking, the Goal role is depro tiled. The verb spray emphasizes the pragmatic meaning of resultative event in non-metaphorical use and denotes the instrument itself, and therefore the instrument role is considered as the repeated information and is adjusted to a position after the roles of agent and patient in the theta grid. To the verb cram, the same construction of caused-motion is shared by non-metaphorical and metaphorical uses in that the limits of this container in the theta grid is emphasized or highlighted.更多还原