语法转喻的跨语言研究探析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.09.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 国内外跨语言研究成果丰富,研究视角多维。语法转喻是近年来概念转喻研究的新趋向,它为跨语言研究提供了一个新的切入点。本文首先论述了语法转喻跨语言研究的理论基础,然后基于过往的主要研究成果,沿着词法和句法两大脉络,探讨了语法转喻跨语言研究的范围,并勾勒了对比研究的基本内容。

关键词: 语法转喻, 概念转喻, 跨语言研究

Abstract: The cross-linguistic studies at home and abroad have made a lot of achievements from various perspectives. Grammatical metonymy (GM) has been a new trend in conceptual metonymy in recent years, which will open up a new avenue of research in cross-linguistic studies. This paper first illustrates the theoretical foundation of the cross-linguistic study of GM. Based on the previous studies on GM, the paper explores its research scope in line with morphology and syntax and generalizes its research content.

中图分类号:

吴淑琼, 张绍全. 语法转喻的跨语言研究探析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 24-29.

WU Shuqiong, ZHANG Shaoquan. On the Cross-linguistic Study of Grammatical Metonymy[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 24-29.

参考文献

Barcelona, A. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. Peña (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 313-52.
Barcelona, A. 2011. The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish [A]. In M. Brdar (ed.). Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 151-78.
Basilio, M. 2009. The role of metonymy in word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 99-109.
Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions [M]. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 259-74.
Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 241-66.
Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229-57.
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives [A]. In K. Kövecses (ed.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 175-97.
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 323-36.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003a. Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? [J]. International Journal of English Studies 3(2): 85-105.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003b.The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1): 43-69.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2004. Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-55.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2012. The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective [J]. Language Sciences (34): 728-45.
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 275-89.
Goossens, L. 1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 193-210.
Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms [A]. In G. Radden (ed.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77-98.
Imamoviü, A. 2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of -ion nominalizations [J]. Jezikoslovlje (7): 45-65.
Janda, L. A. 2011. Metonymy in word-formation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 359-92.
Kövecses, Z. & G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (1): 37-77.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-71.
Palmer, G., R. Rader & A. Clarito. 2009. The metonymic basis of a “semantic partial”: Tagalog lexical constructions with ka- [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 111-44.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 385-99.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-319.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2003. Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1): 71-101.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2009. Introduction: On figuration in grammar [A]. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-44.
Pérez, L. 2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality [A]. In K. Kosecki (ed.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 133-46.
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy [A]. In C. J. L. Otal, et al. (eds.). Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. de la Universitat Jaume I. 17-28.
Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 223-39.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & J. L. Otal. 2002. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granda: Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & L. Pérez. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language and Communication 21(4): 321-57.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & M. Peña. 2008. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish [A]. In M. de los A. G. Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. G. Álvarez (eds.). Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251-80.
高航.2008.认知语法与汉语转类问题[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社.
黄洁.2008.汉英隐转喻名名复合词语义的认知研究[J].外语教学(4):25-29.
卢卫中.2008.汉语构词的转喻阐释[A].束定芳.语言研究的语用和认知视角[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
陆俭明.2011.语言研究需要不断探索和创新[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4):1-6.
潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
秦裕祥.2008.英语名词词组中前置修饰语使用限制的次范畴化解释[J].外语教学与研究(2):113-20.
沈家煊.1999.转指与转喻[J].当代语言学(1):3-15.
沈家煊.2000.句式和配价[J].中国语文(4):291-97。
谭业升.2011.转喻的图式及其例示的语言差异——以英汉名词动用为例[J].外国语文(3):53-58.
王冬梅.2001.现代汉语动名互转的认知研究[D].中国社会科学院研究生院.
王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
文旭.2009.以认知为基础的英汉对比研究——关于对比认知语言学的一些构想[J].中国外语(3):25-30.
吴淑琼.2013.基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
许余龙.1992.对比语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙.2009.对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考[J].外语教学与研究(4):279-83.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.

[1]	徐盛桓, 刘倩. 因果蕴涵理论的应用:以含义研究为例——语言学科理论创新探究之四[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 5-20.
[2]	杨朝军, 杨更前. WXDY构式非直陈义的句法生成理据[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 71-83.
[3]	刘龙根, 朱晓真, 霍文静. 字面意义与“所言”的联系与甄别——一项基于语义直觉判断的实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 50-62.
[4]	薛小姣, 王小楠, 周卫京. 中国英语学习者/l/-/r/产出的可理解度[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(02): 44-56.
[5]	杨雅平. 日常语言哲学的浴火重生[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(01): 97-105.
[6]	齐曦. 争论与说服——《纽约时报》社论“可辩驳”立场的话语模式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 24-28.
[7]	肖若琳, 卫乃兴. 中西学者学术论文中N that-cl型式的语料库对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(01): 34-41.
[8]	李冬梅. FOXP2基因与语言的相关性研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(11): 47-51.
[9]	文旭. 政治话语与政治隐喻[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 11-16.
[10]	贺梦依. 政治隐喻中的意识形态[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 17-23.
[11]	黄曙光. 转喻认知运作机制中的概念突显[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 30-35.
[12]	王容花. 隐喻的“两只眼”——概念隐喻与语法隐喻之融合与互补[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 36-41.
[13]	谢妮妮. 《视觉叙事阅读》述评[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 74-76.