图形-背景关系的可逆性与转喻的认知机制

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.11.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 图形和背景关系的可逆性不仅解释了转喻映射的可逆现象,而且为转喻生成和识解^①的认知机制提供了统一的解释框架。转喻的生成和识解是发生在不同时空、认知操作路向相反的两个认知过程,在研究中将它们混为一谈或偏倚其一都是不足取的。

Abstract: The reversal of Figure-Ground organization not only illuminates the reversibility of metonymic mappings but also finds its way to set up a holistic framework to elaborate the cognitive mechanisms in generating and construing metonymy which are two reverse cognitive processes occurring in different time and space, and, therefore, it is inadvisable and misleading to mix up the two processes or only pay attention to either of them in metonymic research.

中图分类号:

H030

卢军羽. 图形-背景关系的可逆性与转喻的认知机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(11): 24-29.

LU Junyu. The Reversibility of Figure-Ground Theory and the Cognitive Mechanism of Metonymy[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(11): 24-29.

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 (l2): 21-34.
Barcelona, A. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 207-78.
Boersma, P. 2007. Some listener-oriented accounts of haspiré in French [J]. Lingua 117: 1989-2054.
Baylis, G.C. & J. Driver. 1995. One-sided edge assignment in vision: Figure-ground segmentation and attention to objects[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science (4): 140-46.
Croft, W. 2002[1993]. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 161-205.
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. 275-76.
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica (6): 222-54.
Huang Liqiang & H. Pashler. 2009. Reversing the attention effect in figure-ground perception [J]. Psychological Science 20:1199-1201.
Julesz, B. Textons. 1984. The elements of texture perception, and their interactions [J]. Nature 290: 91-97.
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. 139-68.
Koch, P. 2001. Metonymy: Unity in diversity [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics (2): 201-44.
Koffka, K. 1999[1935]. Principles of Gestalt Psychology [M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kövecses Z. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy [J]. Metaphor and Symbol (2): 75-88.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. Ⅱ. [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions [J].Cognitive Linguistics (4): 1-38.
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin/NewYork: Moulton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. 2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 46-71.
Mendoza, R. F. J. & Olga I. Díez Velasco. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction [A]. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 489-532.
Panther, K-U. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In R. F. J. Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 353-86.
Panther, K-U. & L. Thornburg. 2003. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas [A]. In K-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 127-48.
Peirsman, Y. & D. Geeraerts. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (3): 269-316.
Qiu T Fangtu, T. Sugihara & R. von der Heydt. 2007. Figure-Ground mechanisms provide structure for selective attention [J]. Nature Neuroscience (10):1492-99.
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.
Rojo, A. M. 2009. A cognitive approach to the translation of metonymy-based humor [J]. Across Languages and Cultures (10): 63-83.
Rubin, E. 1958[1915]. Figure and ground [A]. In D.C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (eds.). Readings in Perception [C]. Princeton: Van Nostrand. 194-203.
Sperb, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition) [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Treisman, A. 1986. Features and objects in visual processing [J]. Scientific American 255:114-25.
Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences [A]. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals in Human Language Vol.4 [C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 627-49.
Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
van Valin, R. D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vecera, S. et al. 2004. Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment [J]. Psychological Science (15): 20-26.
Vernon, M. D. 2013. Visual Perception [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
刘国辉.2006.图形-背景空间概念及其在语言中的隐喻性表征[J].外语研究(2):23-29.
卢军羽.2011.隐喻与转喻:争议与原型解释[J].天津外国语大学学报(2):8-15.
张辉、孙明智.2005.概念转喻的本质、分类和认知运作机制[J].外语与外语教学(3):1-6.
张克定.2011.英语倒装方位构式的认知语篇研究[J].外语教学与研究(4):529-39.

[1]	练艺丹1，蔡俊1，张仲伟2，刘佳航1，王韬2. 大脑皮层对飞机飞越噪声的认知机制[J]. 上海交通大学学报（自然版）, 2018, 52(8): 976-981.
[2]	薛庆华, 崔诗爽, 杨林风, 朱刚,. 法洛四联症合并可逆性后部脑病综合征1例[J]. 内科理论与实践, 2018, 13(05): 301-303.
[3]	钟书能, 梁嘉仪. 语言量域与肯定和否定对应认知机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(03): 73-78.
[4]	潘艳艳, 孙凤兰. 英语教学中隐喻能力和转喻能力的培养:方法与案例呈现[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(02): 46-51.
[5]	余盛明. 认知语用学视野下的类同话语研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(05): 11-16.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	宋宏;. 人称代词语篇回指的语义解释模型[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(11): 23-26+77.
[9]	单欣欣;. 从图形-背景理论看有关人体的转喻[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(02): 18-22+65.
[10]	杨文滢;. “名可名,非常名”——中国文化词音译的认知理据[J]. 当代外语研究, 2011, 11(11): 39-42+61.
[11]	滕延江;卢卫中;. 语篇连贯的转喻认知机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2011, 11(09): 21-25+60.
[12]	黄菲菲,. 脑后部可逆性脑病综合征1例[J]. 内科理论与实践, 2011, 6(06): 442-443.
[13]	邹春玲;. 外延内涵传承与类-属思维[J]. 当代外语研究, 2010, 10(12): 1-6+59.
[14]	刘宏伟;. 外延内涵传承说与语篇建构[J]. 当代外语研究, 2010, 10(12): 6-12+59.
[15]	卢卫中;. 词义演变与理解的转喻阐释[J]. 当代外语研究, 2010, 10(11): 28-31+61.