交互主观性视域下概念隐喻的认知语用机制新解

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2019.02.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文从交际维度引入交互主观性理论,对概念隐喻的主要类型进行分析,发现认知主体的主观交互是隐喻生成的主要交际动因,能解答纯体验认知理论(embodiment)解释不了的难题:(1)就映射方向性而言,交互主观性理论能解释各种类型概念隐喻的映射单向性;(2)就认知机制而言,共现和相似机制并非水火不容,而是联合互补,交互主观性可以为两者构建统一的整合模型。

关键词: 概念隐喻, 交互主观性理论, 映射方向性, 隐喻共现性, 隐喻相似性

Abstract: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is widely considered as revolutionary in metaphor studies. Nevertheless, due to its sole concentration on individual-internal embodied representation of metaphor, it somehow ignored the interaction between individuals. Therefore, its key theoretical claims such as the “unidirectionality of metaphorical mapping” and “correlation (as oppose to resemblance) as the motivation for metaphor” are challenged by other scholars. The present paper, based on intersubjectivity theory, analyzed the major types of conceptual metaphors. It turns out that the intersubjectivity-based framework can help solve some challenges for CMT: on one hand, it explains why all major conceptual metaphors are unidirectional when sometimes they don't seem to be; on the other hand, it provides an intergraded model for explaining all major types of metaphors, and resolving the correlation vs. resemblance controversy.

中图分类号:

H319

范振强, 郭雅欣. 交互主观性视域下概念隐喻的认知语用机制新解[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(02): 70-82.

FAN Zhenqiang, GUO Yaxin. An Intersubjectivity-based Interpretation of the Cognitive-pragmatic Mechanism of Conceptual Metaphors[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(02): 70-82.

参考文献

Bergen, B. K. 2012. Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Bowes, A. & A. Katz. 2015.Metaphor creates intimacy and the temporarily enhances theory of mind [J]. Memory and Cognition (6): 953-963.
Dancygier, B. & E. Sweetser. 2014. Figurative Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. 2013. Metaphoric cognition as social activity [J]. Metaphor and the Social World 3(1): 54-76.
Glucksburg,S.& M.S.McGlone.1999.When love is not a journey:What metaphors mean [J].Journal of pragmatics 31:1541-1558.
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance [A]. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79-100.
Hampe, B. 2017. Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Handl, S. 2017. Selling and buying, killing and wounding: (Un)conventional metaphors from two different semantic fields [A]. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (eds.). Metaphor and Communication[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 61-78.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Nuyts,J. 2001.Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3):383-400.
Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity [J]. Psychological Review 86(3): 161-180.
Searle,J.R.1979.Expression and Meaning [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge Universitg Press.
Steen, G. J. 2017. Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues [J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1): 1-24.
Traugott, E. C. 2004. From subjectification to intersubjectification [A]. In H. Raymond (ed.). Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 124-139.
Thompson, G. 2014. Intersubjectivity in newspaper editorials: Construing the reader-in-the-text [A]. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquiere & F. V. Velde (eds.). Interjubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 77-100.
Verhagen, A. 1995. Construction of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. & R. Carston. 2012. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue [A]. In P. Hanks & R. Giora (eds.). Metaphor and Figurative Language [C]. London: Routledge. 361-390.
范振强. 2009.《隐喻中的语境和连接》介评[J]. 现代外语 (2):205-207.
范振强. 2018.论隐喻理论构建的参照维度及连续统——以“A is B”型隐喻为例[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版) (3): 78-89.
郭雅欣、范振强. 2018.语言夸张的认知语用机制新解[J].湖州师范学院学报 (11):84-89.
蒋勇. 2004.夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能[J].现代外语 (3):274-281.
李福印. 2008.认知语言学概论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社.
林书武.1998."愤怒"的概念隐喻——英语、汉语语料[J]. 外语与外语教学 (2):8-12.
莫嘉琳. 2016.向死而生的隐喻:隐喻性终结后的叙事[M]. 北京:清华大学出版社.
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.
沈家煊. 2007.汉语里的名词和动词[J]. 汉藏语学报 (1): 27-31.
文旭、高莉. 2014.交互主观性的构建:话语、句法与交际导读[M]. 北京:世界图书出版公司.
王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2009.国外神经科学最新发现对语言体验性的论证——十六论语言的体验性:模拟论语义学[J]. 外语教学 (3):1-6.

[1]	邹君, 成晓光, 于林龙. 体验哲学视阈下概念隐喻的文化模式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 119-128.
[2]	毛继光;刘雅芳;. “抓手”与“玩转”——乔姆斯基再诠释“恐怖主义”[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 20(03): 93-104.
[3]	钟安林;. 认知视角下《六祖坛经》中的比喻分析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(03): 100-104.
[4]	陈林海;安晓灿;. 英汉经济贸易语言中的概念隐喻对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(03): 4-8+15+93.
[5]	文旭;. 政治话语与政治隐喻[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(09): 11-16+76.
[6]	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+77.
[7]	刘春杰;. 俄、汉动物词隐喻表达的认知对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(07): 28-31.
[8]	章柏成;. 遮蔽与突显——高校英语教师学术身份的隐喻建构[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(07): 32-39+77.
[9]	覃修桂;李颖杰;. 英语温度域的意象图式及其隐喻系统[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(06): 70-76+125.
[10]	Vyvyan Evans;张晓;. 《牛津认知语言学手册》述评[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(05): 68-72.
[11]	胡洁;. 科技术语翻译的文化特征及策略分析——以footprint的翻译为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(05): 53-57+78.
[12]	雷丹;覃修桂;. 体验认知视角下“热”的概念隐喻——一项英汉对比实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(03): 24-28+77.
[13]	贾冬梅;蓝纯;. 五行之土行背后的概念隐喻和借代[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(01): 20-25+33+76.
[14]	周宁;张宜波;. 《虎妈战歌》多元文化性之概念隐喻解读[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(06): 72-75+78.
[15]	侯建波;. 从话语分析角度看人民币汇率报道中的形象构建[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(03): 75-81+160.