网络出版日期: 2022-11-11
基金资助
2020年国家社科基金一般项目“英汉渲染式断言句固化效应的认知语用研究”(编号20BYY012)
A Reductive Analysis of Conceptual Metaphor from the Perspective of Philosophy of Dialogue
Lakoff和Johnson的概念隐喻理论有一个基本观点,就是大部分日常语言具有隐喻性质。这个观点引发的问题是,非隐喻性的那一小部分语言是什么性质的呢?然而,对于这个问题, Lakoff和Johnson并未深究。学术界对此有所论及,但并未加以明确回答。这就有必要重新思考事关概念隐喻的两个基本问题:第一,概念隐喻的实质到底是什么?第二,非隐喻性的语言具有什么特征?如果这两个问题得到回答,那么就能判断特殊语句“I am you”和“我是你”到底是不是概念隐喻。本文针对这些问题,以Buber的对话哲学为指导,就概念隐喻进行还原分析。研究发现:概念隐喻在实质上具有思维性和次生性;一门语言中最基本的原生语词不具有隐喻性质,凡是具有隐喻性质的语词都是次生语词,属于创造出来的产物;现实语句“I am you”和“我是你”不符合概念隐喻的基本要求,而且在对话哲学视域下,它们关涉的是两个基本关系,并不具有描述性。在表达形式上,概念隐喻必须以具有描述性的语词为基础。
王渝, 杜世洪 . 对话哲学视角下概念隐喻的还原分析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2022 , 22(5) : 97 -109 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.05.011
The theory of conceptual metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson has a fundamental claim: A great deal of ordinary language is metaphorical. This claim triggers a question to be thought about in the present study: What is the nature of the small portion of non-metaphorical language? Unfortunately, this question has not been further tackled by Lakoff and Johnson, only to have left it over unanswered in the academic world. Accordingly, the present study attempts to investigate into two basic questions with regard to conceptual metaphor: What is the nature of conceptual metaphor? What characteristic can be found from the small portion of non-metaphorical language? Centering on the two questions, the present study is to conduct a reductive analysis of conceptual metaphor from the perspective of Buber’s philosophy of dialogue. Based on a series of analysis, the present study has found that the conceptual metaphor in nature is the secondary product of language and thought, and a language has a basic part consisting of primary words which cannot be metaphorical, and all metaphors are secondary and creative products in language use. Such expression as “I am you” cannot be interpreted as conceptual metaphor, simply because in terms of Buber’s philosophy of dialogue the primary words “I” and “you” are not conceptually descriptive but contextually sensitive instead.
| [1] | Agazzi, E. 1991. Reductionism as the negation of scientific spirit[A]. In E. Agazzi (ed). The Problem of Reductionism in Science[C]. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1-30. |
| [2] | Aristotle,. 2006. Poetics (trans. by J. Sachs)[M]. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing Puilins Co. |
| [3] | Arnett, R. C. 1986. Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue[M]. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. |
| [4] | Beardsley, M. C. 1962. The metaphorical twist[J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 22: 293-307. |
| [5] | Black, M. 1954. Metaphor[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273-94. |
| [6] | Buber, M. 2002. Between Man and Man (trans. by R. Gregor-Smith )[M]. New York: Routlege. |
| [7] | Buber, M. 2008. I and Thou (trans. by R. Gregor-Smith)[M]. LaVergne, TN: Hesperides Press. |
| [8] | Bunge, M. 1991. The power and limits of reduction[A]. In E. Agazzi (ed). The Problem of Reductionism in Science[C]. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.31-50. |
| [9] | Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press. |
| [10] | Davidson, D. 1978. What metaphors mean[J]. Critical Inquiry (5): 31-47. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 1984: 245-264. |
| [11] | Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. |
| [12] | Du, S. & Y. Wang. 2021. Metaphors and their semantic predictability in dyadic interaction[J]. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8(1): 174-202. |
| [13] | Gass, W. H. 1975. On Being Blue: A Philosophical Inquiry[M]. Boston: David R. Godine. |
| [14] | Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press. |
| [15] | Hawkes, T. 2018. Metaphor[M]. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. |
| [16] | Hills, D. 2022. Metaphor[EB/OL]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [2022-09-22]. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/. |
| [17] | Johnson, M. 1981. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor[M]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. |
| [18] | Kaufman, W. 1970. I and You: A Prologue. In Buber, M. I and Thou (trans. by W. Kaufman)[M]. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. |
| [19] | Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [20] | Kövecses, Z. 2015. Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [21] | Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980a. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language[J]. The Journal of Philosophy 77(8): 453-486. |
| [22] | Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980b. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. |
| [23] | Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By (with an added Afterword)[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. |
| [24] | Lamb, S. 2000. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet[M]. New York: Hungry Minds, Inc. |
| [25] | Lambert, G. 2018. In the beginning was the word[J]. Philosophy Today 62(4): 1303-1310. |
| [26] | Lee, D. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[M]. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. |
| [27] | Martinich, A. P. 1984. A theory for metaphor[J]. Journal of Literary Semantics 13: 35-56. |
| [28] | Moran, R. 1989. Seeing and believing: Metaphor, image, and force[J]. Critical Inquiry 6(1): 87-112. |
| [29] | Ortony, A. 1993. Metaphor, language, and thought[A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge University Press.1-19. |
| [30] | Orwell, G. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four[M]. London: Penguin Classics. |
| [31] | Overton, W. F. 2003. Understanding, explanation,and reductionism: Findinga cure for Cartesian anxiety[A]. In T. Brown & L. Smith. (eds.). Reductionism and the Development of Knowledge[C]. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 29-52. |
| [32] | Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric[M]. London and New York: Oxford University Press. |
| [33] | Searle, J. R. 1979. Metaphor in Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. |
| [34] | Steinhart, E. C. 2001. The Logic of Metaphor[M]. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| [35] | Turner, M. 2000. Mother Is the Death of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism[M]. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cyberedition Corporation. |
| [36] | Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity[J]. Psychological Review 84: 327-352. |
| [37] | van Riel, R. & R. van Gulick. 2019. Scientific reduction[EB/OL]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [2022-09-22]. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/. |
| [38] | 柏拉图. 2003. 柏拉图全集(第二卷)(王晓朝译)[M]. 北京: 人民出版社. |
| [39] | 曹雪芹. 2014. 红楼梦(彩图版)[M]. 北京: 北京时代华文书局. |
| [40] | 杜世洪. 2020. 语言研究的描写与解释[J]. 当代外语研究(3): 27-36. |
| [41] | 余秀华. 2018. 我爱你[A]. 李少君、丁鹏. 春暖花开四十年[C]. 长春: 时代文艺出版社.388. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
