隐喻理解加工机制研究的“旧貌新颜”——从隐含比较到概念构建

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 隐喻的理解加工机制是隐喻研究领域的重要课题,对它进行研究的历史源远流长。最早可追溯到两千多年前的古希腊哲学家亚里士多德,而最新则可把目光聚焦到词汇语用学的最新成果。亚里士多德最早提出了隐喻的比较理论,并由此开创了视隐喻为隐含比较的学术传统。在这一研究范式下,出现了许多具体的理解加工理论,本文重点介绍了纯匹配理论、突显不平衡理论和域交互理论。总体来看,隐含比较的学术传统取得了许多重要的成果,但是也存有许多分歧,它们对许多具体问题未能形成比较一致的意见,直到新研究范式即概念构建理论的出现。围绕概念构建研究范式,文章着重阐述了三大模型的解释,即范畴函括模型、词汇语用学解释以及Recanati的词汇阐释模型。隐喻理解加工既要应用先前已习得概念,又涉及新概念的构建,即临场概念,这是一个经词汇编码概念的“窄化”与“宽化”的语用调整的结果。本文认为,概念构建的三大研究范式对隐喻理解加工的洞察具有毋庸置疑的开创性,它们打破了自亚里士多德以来视隐喻为隐含比较的学术传统,学术动向值得关注。

关键词: 隐喻, 隐含比较, 共享特征, 临场概念

Abstract: Metaphor processing and understanding (MPU) has been a focus of studies in question and has experienced a long history of evolution, which could be traced back to the works of Aristotle who started the tradition of implicit comparison in MPU. Followers conducted studies under such frameworks as the pure matching theory, salience imbalance theory, and domain-interaction theories. There is no dying that significant achievements had been being made ever since, yet the divergence of views in this research field is what helps move forward studies on MPU. A remarkable trend is studies conducted under a new research paradigm, the concept construction of MPU. The present article offered explanations from three research theories: theory of lexical pragmatics, theory of Recanati's, and theory of class-inclusion. It is believed that MPU involves both the use of previously acquired concepts and the creation of new ones, the ad hoc concepts. The ad hoc concept results from concept broadening and concept narrowing, a general pragmatic process of concept adjustment. Explanations from the three research models have offered important insights into metaphor processing and understanding.

中图分类号:

吴诗玉, 马拯. 隐喻理解加工机制研究的“旧貌新颜”——从隐含比较到概念构建[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(02): 22-27.

WU Shiyu, MA Zheng. The Past and Present of Studies on Metaphor Processing and Understanding: From Implicit Comparison to Concept Construction[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(02): 22-27.

参考文献

Barsalou, L.1983. Ad hoc categories [J]. Memory and Cognition (11): 211-27.
Black, M. 1993. More about metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed). Metaphor and Thought [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cacciari, C. & S. Glucksberg. 1994. Understanding figurative language [A]. In M. Gernsbacher (ed). Handbook of Psycholinguistics [C]. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 447-77.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. 2010a. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images [J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Soceity 110: 293-321.
Carston, R. 2010b. Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: A relevance theory perspective [J]. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 1-28.
Glucksberg, S. & B. Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity [J]. Psychological Review 97(1): 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., D. A. Manfredi & M. S. McGlone. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories [A]. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (eds). Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes [C]. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association. 327-50.
Johnson, M. E. & R. Malgady. 1979. Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (8): 253-65.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Laudan, L. 1996. A problem-solving approach to scientific progress [A]. In P. Riggs (ed). Whys and Ways of Science: Introducing Philosophical and Sociological Theories of Science [C]. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 95-123
Malgady, R. G. & M. G. Johnson. 1976. Modifiers in metaphors: Effects of constituent phrase similarity on the interpretation of figurative sentences [J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (5): 43-52.
Miller, G. A. 1979. Images and models, similes and metaphors [A]. In A. Ortony (ed). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 357-400.
Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity [J]. Psychological Review 86: 161-80.
Osgood, C., G. Suci & P. Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning [M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Readence, J. E., R. S. Baldwin & A. M. Martin. 1984. Metaphorical interpretation: An investigation of the salience imbalance hypothesis [A]. In D. G. O’Brien (ed). Journal of Educational Psychology 76(4): 659-67.
Recanati, F.2004. Literal Meaning [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tourangeau, R. & L. Rips. 1991. Interpreting and evaluating metaphor [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 452-72.
Tourangeau, R. & R. J. Sternberg. 1982. Understanding and appreciating metaphors [J]. Cognition 11: 203-44.
Trick, L. & A. N. Katz. 1986. The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics [J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1(3): 185-213.
Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity [J]. Psychological Review 84: 327-52.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (eds). Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 249-87.
Wilson, D. & R. Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts [A]. In Burton-Roberts (ed). Advances in Pragmatics [C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 230-60.
Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics [J]. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15: 273-91.
董成如.2007.词汇语用学的认知视角——话语中词义缩小和扩大的图式范畴化阐释[J].现代外语(3):231-38.
蒋严、袁影.2010.临场概念与隐喻分析[J].当代修辞学(3):1-6.
马玉俊.2009.隐喻理解加工策略的选择机制[D].河南大学硕士论文.
马拯、吴诗玉.2011.外语故事理解中的角色目标抑制研究[J].外语教学与研究(6):887-99.
吴诗玉、马拯.2012.中国学习者外语故事理解中心理表征建构过程及管理[J].现代外语(3):278-85.
周榕、黄希庭.1998.隐喻理解加工机制的研究[J].心理学动态(3):19-25.

[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]	任东升, 季秀妹. 基于“政治等效”的外交话语隐喻英译策略——以2019年外交部例行记者会发言为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 84-95.
[3]	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.
[4]	于翠红, 潘秀丽. 注意力视窗理论观照的隐喻汉英表征与认知路径——以《天堂蒜薹之歌》汉英版本为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(06): 54-63.
[5]	卢植, 庞莉. 不同编码方式对英语学习者的动词隐喻理解效应[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(04): 48-57.
[6]	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.
[7]	王任华;. 隐喻认知视角的网络语言暴力[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(04): 58-63.
[8]	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.
[9]	孙毅, 陈叶. 汉英数字隐喻新视界探幽揽胜[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(01): 5-12.
[10]	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.
[11]	范莉;. 语言与思维:在语言发展的过程中[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(05): 6-15.
[12]	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.
[13]	贺杰;周流溪;. 认知语言学视域下英汉爱情隐喻的哲学基础与文化映射[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(11): 30-35+78.
[14]	彭玉海;吕烨;. 试论思维意义动词隐喻机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(11): 18-23+77.
[15]	沈星辰, 陈新仁. 广告语言中指称模糊的认知语用解读——以汽车广告为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(09): 33-38.