汉英空间语言参照系表达对比研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.01.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 已有不少研究探索空间语言与认知,但相关的汉英对比研究却比较稀缺。本文在Danziger (2010)四分参照系模式下对比研究汉英语篇中的空间参照系表达。结果表明,汉英空间参照系表达既有共性也有异性。主要共性为:两者都采用由“目标物”至“参照物”/“参照物”至“目标物”两种语序结构,都使用“绝对、相对、物本、直接”四种参照系描述空间物体位置。主要差异为:(1)“参照物先于目标物”的语序结构在汉语语料中占压倒性优势,“目标物先于参照物”的语序结构在英语语料中占绝对优势;(2)“绝对参照”是汉语的优选参照系表达,“物本参照”是英语的优选参照系表达;(3)汉语通常须使用后置方位词标示物体位置(前置介词可用可略),英语只用介词表达物体位置。研究还表明,汉英空间参照系表达的共性是由人类普遍性空间认知驱动的,而两者差异性具有其特定的、多样性的认知语义理据。

关键词: 汉英空间语言, 参照系, 差异, 认知语义理据, 对比分析

Abstract: Research is quite rich in spatial language and cognition; however, there is little work done contrastively in Chinese and English. This study compares and analyzes the spatial expressions and frames of reference (FORs) used in Chinese and English discourse within Danziger's (2010) four way typology. The results show that there are likenesses and dissimilarities in spatial descriptions between the two languages. The likenesses are that both languages utilize the Figure Ground and Ground Figure sequence and the four FORs to describe the objects' location. The dissimilarities are as follows. First, the Ground Figure structures occur overwhelmingly in Chinese while the Figure Ground structures are prevailing in English. Second, absolute FORs are more preferred in Chinese, but object centered FORs more so in English. Third, in Chinese a postposition is normally required, with or without a preposition concurring, to localize the Figure, whereas in English a preposition is always used to specify the Figure's location. It is also suggested that the similarities in spatial descriptions between the languages are driven by universal cognition in space, yet the differences thus found are attributable to cognitive and semantic diversity.

中图分类号:

H319

刘礼进, 骆欢. 汉英空间语言参照系表达对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(01): 23-30.

LIU Lijin, LUO Huan. A Contrastive Study of the Reference Frames and Spatial Expressions in Chinese and English[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(01): 23-30.

参考文献

Brown, P. 2008. Up, down, and across the land: Landscape terms, place names, and spatial language in Tzeltal [J]. Language Sciences 30:151-81.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A.& D. A. Irwin. 1993. Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above [J]. Cognition 46: 223-44.
Danziger, E. 2010. Deixis, gesture, and cognition in spatial frame of reference typology [J]. Studies in Language 34(1): 167-85.
Danziger, E. 2011. Distinguishing three-dimensional forms from their mirror-images: Whorfian results from users of intrinsic frames of linguistic reference [J]. Language Sciences 33: 853-67.
Greenberg, J. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language [A]. In M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (eds.). Approaches to Language Typology [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 145-66.
Kry-Kastovsky, B. 1996. The linguistic, cognitive and cultural variables of the conceptualization of space [A]. In P. Martin & D. René (eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 329-44.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. & D. P. Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-23.
O'Meara, C. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Seri [J]. Language Sciences 33: 1025-46.
Pederson, E., E. Danziger, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita, G. Senft & D. P. Wilkins. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization [J]. Language 74 (3): 557-89.
Pérez-Báez, G. 2011. Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec [J]. Language Sciences 33: 943-60.
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space [A]. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application [C]. New York: Plenum Press. 225-82.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: MIT Press.
Terrill, A. & N. Burenhult. 2008. Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference [J]. Studies in Language 32 (1): 93-116.
方经民. 1987. 汉语“左”“右”方位参照中的主观和客观:兼与游顺钊先生讨论[J]. 语言教学与研究 (3): 52-60.
刘宁生. 1994. 汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系 [J]. 中国语文(3): 169-79.
刘丹青. 2002. 汉语中的框式介词[J]. 当代语言学 (4): 241-53.
齐沪扬. 2009. 现代汉语的空间系统[J]. 世界汉语教学 (1): 22-33.
沈家煊、完权. 2009. 也谈“之字结构”和“之”字的功能[J]. 语言研究 (2): 1-12.
完权. 2010. 语篇中的参照体目标构式[J]. 语言教学与研究 (6): 38-45.

[1]	荣雪宁，卢浩，王明洋，文祝，戎晓力，王振. 基于刀盘扭转能量的土压平衡盾构刀具磨损分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报, 2019, 53(8): 965-970.
[2]	倪何，覃海波，金家善，孙丰瑞. 基于差异演化和残差修正的离心泵特性辨识与汽蚀分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（自然版）, 2018, 52(7): 831-836.
[3]	周知航，赵昊明，陈旭卓，张善勇，郑吉驷，杨驰. 基于数字医学的下颌骨重建系统：模块化手术方案和标准化评估[J]. 组织工程与重建外科杂志, 2018, 14(3): 127-131.
[4]	王军锋，刘兴钊. 合成孔径雷达运动目标检测的研究进展[J]. 上海交通大学学报（自然版）, 2018, 52(10): 1273-1279.
[5]	李曙光;胡良谋;方鸽;曹克强;谢志刚;曹伟;. 新型压电叠堆式射流管伺服阀前置级设计及性能分析[J]. 机械设计与研究, 2018, 34(03): 111-115.
[6]	何际洲，高博闻，程辰，李青峰. 脂肪组织的分类及研究进展[J]. 组织工程与重建外科杂志, 2017, 13(4): 224-227.
[7]	方少华, 常辉. 儿童母语习得与成人二语习得是否存在本质差异？——以双宾句习得为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 90-95.
[8]	王建国. 汉英时间意识和空间意识:翻译角度[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(02): 77-81.
[9]	王伟科, 周祖法, 陈青, 袁卫东. 灰树花菌丝体与原基转录组差异表达分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2016, 34(1): 74-80.
[10]	. 《融合大学英语》[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(05): 95-.
[11]	于文心，马刚，仇雅璟，陈辉，金云波，杨希，胡晓洁，王天佑，常雷，李伟，周恒花，林晓曦. 面部不同亚解剖区域葡萄酒色斑激光治疗效果差异的病理学基础[J]. 组织工程与重建外科杂志, 2015, 11(1): 37-40.
[12]	司显柱, 田广山. 英语电影片名汉译的创造性叛逆——以2014年国内引进的英文电影为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(06): 46-49.
[13]	倪何，肖航，曾凡明，孙丰瑞. 基于残差修正的涡轮增压机组差异演化建模与降负荷特性分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（自然版）, 2015, 49(05): 620-625.
[14]	黄勤, 龚梦南. 英语新闻报道与新闻评论中元话语使用之对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(05): 16-19.
[15]	姜敏, 吕靖, 诸江, 陈海珍, 陈曦, 张一帆, 李宏为,. 甲状腺乳头状癌差异基因筛选的初步研究[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2014, 19(03): 227-231.