国内外跨语言研究成果丰富,研究视角多维。语法转喻是近年来概念转喻研究的新趋向,它为跨语言研究提供了一个新的切入点。本文首先论述了语法转喻跨语言研究的理论基础,然后基于过往的主要研究成果,沿着词法和句法两大脉络,探讨了语法转喻跨语言研究的范围,并勾勒了对比研究的基本内容。
The cross-linguistic studies at home and abroad have made a lot of achievements from various perspectives. Grammatical metonymy (GM) has been a new trend in conceptual metonymy in recent years, which will open up a new avenue of research in cross-linguistic studies. This paper first illustrates the theoretical foundation of the cross-linguistic study of GM. Based on the previous studies on GM, the paper explores its research scope in line with morphology and syntax and generalizes its research content.
Barcelona, A. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. Peña (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 313-52.
Barcelona, A. 2011. The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish [A]. In M. Brdar (ed.). Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 151-78.
Basilio, M. 2009. The role of metonymy in word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 99-109.
Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions [M]. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 259-74.
Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 241-66.
Brdar, M. & R. Brdar-Szabó. 2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229-57.
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives [A]. In K. Kövecses (ed.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 175-97.
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 323-36.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003a. Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? [J]. International Journal of English Studies 3(2): 85-105.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2003b.The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1): 43-69.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2004. Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-55.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & M. Brdar. 2012. The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective [J]. Language Sciences (34): 728-45.
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. 275-89.
Goossens, L. 1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 193-210.
Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms [A]. In G. Radden (ed.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77-98.
Imamoviü, A. 2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of -ion nominalizations [J]. Jezikoslovlje (7): 45-65.
Janda, L. A. 2011. Metonymy in word-formation [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 359-92.
Kövecses, Z. & G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (1): 37-77.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-71.
Palmer, G., R. Rader & A. Clarito. 2009. The metonymic basis of a “semantic partial”: Tagalog lexical constructions with ka- [A]. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 111-44.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 385-99.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-319.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2003. Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1): 71-101.
Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg. 2009. Introduction: On figuration in grammar [A]. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-44.
Pérez, L. 2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality [A]. In K. Kosecki (ed.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang. 133-46.
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy [A]. In C. J. L. Otal, et al. (eds.). Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. de la Universitat Jaume I. 17-28.
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. 223-39.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & J. L. Otal. 2002. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granda: Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & L. Pérez. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language and Communication 21(4): 321-57.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. & M. Peña. 2008. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish [A]. In M. de los A. G. Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. G. Álvarez (eds.). Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251-80.
高航.2008.认知语法与汉语转类问题[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社.
黄洁.2008.汉英隐转喻名名复合词语义的认知研究[J].外语教学(4):25-29.
卢卫中.2008.汉语构词的转喻阐释[A].束定芳.语言研究的语用和认知视角[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
陆俭明.2011.语言研究需要不断探索和创新[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4):1-6.
潘文国.1997.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
秦裕祥.2008.英语名词词组中前置修饰语使用限制的次范畴化解释[J].外语教学与研究(2):113-20.
沈家煊.1999.转指与转喻[J].当代语言学(1):3-15.
沈家煊.2000.句式和配价[J].中国语文(4):291-97。
谭业升.2011.转喻的图式及其例示的语言差异——以英汉名词动用为例[J].外国语文(3):53-58.
王冬梅.2001.现代汉语动名互转的认知研究[D].中国社会科学院研究生院.
王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
文旭.2009.以认知为基础的英汉对比研究——关于对比认知语言学的一些构想[J].中国外语(3):25-30.
吴淑琼.2013.基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
许余龙.1992.对比语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙.2009.对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考[J].外语教学与研究(4):279-83.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
