转喻认知运作机制中的概念突显

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.09.005

当代外语研究 ›› 2014, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (09): 30-35.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.09.005

转喻认知运作机制中的概念突显

黄曙光

长沙理工大学,长沙,410114

出版日期:2014-09-28 发布日期:2020-07-25
作者简介:黄曙光,长沙理工大学外国语学院副教授。主要研究方向为认知语言学、语义与句法的界面研究。电子邮箱:hsg100@126.com

The Conceptual Prominence in Metonymy Operation

HUANG Shuguang

Online:2014-09-28 Published:2020-07-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 认知语言学认为转喻在本质上是一种概念现象,是一个概念实体(源域)为另一概念实体(目标域)提供心理通道的认知操作过程,在其运作过程中存在着一个概念实体的突显。本文通过分析和举例,说明了话题性和后续话语中的回指代词可以作为确定是源域内的源义概念突显还是目标域内的目标义概念突显的理据,指出代词回指的先行语就是概念突显所在。

关键词: 转喻运作, 概念突显, 代词回指, 话题性

Abstract: According to Cognitive Linguistics, metonymy is a conceptual phenomenon, or a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access for another conceptual entity, and in this cognitive process there is an entity known as conceptual prominence. Through analysis and exemplification, the paper attempts to demonstrate that pronominal anaphora and topicality may shed light on the problem of identifying the locus of conceptual prominence. It holds that the antecedent of the pronominal anaphora is the locus of conceptual prominence.

中图分类号:

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.

HUANG Shuguang. The Conceptual Prominence in Metonymy Operation[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(09): 30-35.

参考文献

Alac, M. & S. Coulson. 2004. The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? [J]. Cognitive Science Online (2): 21-34.
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor [A]. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin & New York: Moulton de Gruyter. 31-58.
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (4): 335-70.
Dirven, R. & R. Pöring (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jakobson, R. 1954. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances [A]. In R. Jakobson & H. Morris (eds.). Fundamentals of Language [C]. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. 115-33.
Koch, P. 1999. Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 139-67.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1989. Absolute construal [A]. In F. J. Heyvaert & F. Steurs (eds.). Worlds Behind Words [C]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 65-76.
Langacker, R. W. 1991a. Concept, Image and Symbol [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. Ⅱ: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (4): 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K-U. & G. Radden (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K-U. & L. Thornburg (eds.). 2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K-U. & L. Thornburg. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction [J]. Metaphori. de (06): 91-116.
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. 17-60.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon.
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]	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.
[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.

转喻认知运作机制中的概念突显

The Conceptual Prominence in Metonymy Operation

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 13

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价